Alright, here it is. Rice posted the scanned
material, I just corrected it. The nasty bits are about from
page 50 on where fair game and harassment is laid
out. Cooper, Cazares and others.

The claim that Scientology abandoned "Fair Game"
in 1968 is exposed here as more lies.

******************************************************************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. Criminal Case No. 78-401
)

MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al. )

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-------------------------------------------------------

The United States of America, respectfully submits
this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing
sentence in this case.

Initially, the United States must point out that as
part of the agreement which this Court found to exist between
it and the defendants, the United States agreed that it would
take "no position and is making no request on the matter of
sentence with respect to the defendant [Mary Sue] Hubbard."
Memorandum Opinion of October 8, 1979 at 10. However, as
this Court found, it was also "understood that Mrs. Hubbard
through her counsel will make no statement in allocution
concerning the facts of the case." Id. The United States
is, of course, prepared to abide by the Court's ruling, as
it has always been, as long as the defendant Hubbard reli-
giously abides by it as well. Moreover, as this Court held
"as to any defendant, including Mrs. Hubbard, the govern-
ment may dispute any statements of fact on any matter with
which it has disagreement." The United States intends to
correct any misstatement of facts made by Ms. Hubbard or her
counsel. In view of this Court's ruling, the United takes
"no position and is making no request" regarding the sentencing
of the defendant Hubbard. All representations contained in

- 2 -

the instant memorandum therefore apply only to the other
eight defendants.1/

The United States initiated the investigation which
resulted In the instant indictment in view of the brazen,
systematic and persistent burglaries of United States Govern-
ment offices in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California,
over an extended period of at least some two years. Additionally,
the United States was confronted with the pervasive conduct
of the defendants in this case in thwarting a federal Grand
Jury investigation by harboring a fugitive, in effect force-
fully kidnapping a witness who had decided to surrender to
the federal authorities, submitting false evidence to the
Grand Jury, destroying other evidence which might have been
of valuable aid to its investigation, preparing a cover-up
story, and encouraging and drilling a crucial witness to
give false testimony under oath to that Grand Jury. Such .
outrageous conduct, it was felt, struck at the very heart
of our judicial system -- a system which has often been, at
crucial times in our history, the savior of our institutions.
We considered that in view of the widespread and long drawn
out nature of these offenses, as well as their heinousness,
we would have been derelict in our duty to enforce the laws
if we had failed to bring the charges in the instant indict-
ment. Moreover, a review of the documents seized in the two
Los Angeles, California, searches, which have since been
unsealed by this Court, show the incredible and sweeping
nature of the criminal conduct of the defendants and of the
organizaion which they led. These crimes include the

-------------------------
1/ In light of the afore mentioned agreement regarding
the Government's allocution concerning the defendant Hubbard,
references in the plural to "defendants" do not include that
defendant.

- 3 -

infiltration and theft of documents from a number of promi-
nent private national and world organizations, law firms and
newspapers; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless
law suits to destroy private individuals who had attempted
to exercise their First Amendraent rights to freedom of expres-
sion; the framing of private citizens who had been critical
of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led
to the indictment of at least one innocent person; violation
of the civil rights of prominent private figures and public
officials. Tbese are but a few of the criminal acts not
covered in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence which the
United States believes this Court must consider in imposing
an appropriate sentence in the instant case. These other
crimes are disucssed at length in section V of the instant
memorandum.

In view of the severity and heinousness of the crimes
of which the defendants Heldt, Snider, Willardson, Weigand,
Raymond, Hermann, Wolfe and Thomas were convicted, as well
as the additional criminal acts committed by these defendants
which we now bring to this Court's attention, we submit that
the public interest demands the imposition of the maximum
terms of incarceration and, where appropriate, the maximum
fines provided by the law. This Court must make it clear
beyond peradventure that the criminal conduct of the above-
named defendants cannot be countenanced and that anyone found
guilty of tampering with the judicial system -- a system
which this Court has often referred to as "quasi-religious"
in nature -- will be dealt with in the most severe terms
provided by the law.

- 4 -

I.

Introduction
------------

The defendants in this case, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider,
Richard Weigand, Gregory Willardson, Mitchell Hermann, a/k/a
Mike Cooper, Cindy Raymond, Gerald Bennett Wolfe, and Sharon
Thomas each stand before this Court convicted of one count
of a twenty-eight count indictment.2/ The indictment and
the evidence set out massive conspiracies to burglarize
Government offices, steal Government property, intercept
private Governmental communications, obstruct the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and Grand Jury investigation into
those burglaries, thefts, and "buggings", harbor and conceal
a fugitive, and make false declarations to the federal Grand
Jury. Each of the defendants, while found guilty of only
one count of that indictment, entered into an "uncontested"
stipulation of evidence on October 26, 1979, which stipula-
tion set forth in detail the United States1 evidence on each
of the counts in the indictment. The defendants, by placing
their signatures on that stipulation of evidence, did not
contest the accuracy or sufficiency of the evidence contained
therein, and, indeed, pleaded with this Court to find them
guilty based upon that stipulation. Thus, the United States
is at a total loss to understand the statements of the defen-
dant Thomas' attorney, Leonard J. Koenick, to the probation
officer contesting the accuracy of the facts set out in the
"uncontested" stipulation of evidence which he and his client
individually signed in open Court on October 26, 1979. Mr.
Koenick's protestations must be rejected out* of hand and

--------------
2/ The defendants Heldt, Snider, Weigand, Willardson,
Raymond, and Wolfe were convicted of Count XXIII; the defen-
dant Hermann was found guilty of Count I; and the defendant
Thomas was convicted of Count XVII.

- 5 -

represent a clear example of the failure of his client to
comprehend the gravity of her crimes.

The presentence reports of all defendants, except
defendant Hubbard, contain the statement that "according to
the U.S. Attorney, all of the perpetrators involved in this
Conspiracy went beyond what the Church of Scientology ex-
pected of them." Presentence Reports at 5# Upon reviewing
these reports, the United States informed the Probation Office
that that statement was an incorrect representation of the
United States' view of the evidence. In view of the press
of business and the lack of time to make the necessary cor-
rection, the Probation Office indicated that it would orally
convey that error and the correct position of the United
States to this Court. In fact, it is the position of the
United States that each and everyone of the defendants herein
fulfilled his duties as expected by the Church of Scientology,
that all of their criminal activities, as well as those of
all unindicted co-conspirators, were carried out in furtherance
of the very goals of their Church. The very policies of
the Church, as reflected by its Guardian Orders called for
the execution of massive criminal conspiracies and rewarded
the participants for their success in carrying out these
criminal policies.

II.

The Law
-------

The right of this Court to consider evidence of other
crimes prior to imposing a sentence has long been recognized.
It is 'well settled that "before making [a sentencing] deter-
mination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad
in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of informa-
tion he may consider, or the source from which it may come."

- 6 -

United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972). Courts
have a duty to obtain as much information as they can about
a convicted defendant's background, character, and conduct,
criminal or otherwise, so that they can impose a sentence to
fit the circumstances of the case and the individual defendant.
See United States v. Grayson, 98 S.Ct. 2610 (1978); 18 U.S.C.
Â§3577 (1976). Thus, hearsay assertions are admissible,
Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959), as is information
about prior crimes committed by the defendant, even if the
indictments for those crimes are pending, United States v.
Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 411 U.S.
919 (1973) for the defendant was never tried for the other
crimes, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 244 (1949), or
the charges were dismissed without an adjudication on the
merits, United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 382 U.S. 843 (1965); United States v. Needles, 472
F.2d 652, 655 (2d Cir. 1973); or the defendant otherwise
avoided conviction. United States v. Jones, 113 U.S.App.D.C.
233, 307 F.2d 190 (1962), cert, denied, 372 U.S. 919 (1963);
United States v. Cifarelli, 401 F.2d 512, 514 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 393 U.S. 987 (1968). Even facts developed in prose-
cutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered
by the sentencing judge. United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181
(2d Cir. 1972).

In addition, the Court can consider all the circumstances
surrounding a defendant's conviction for the present crime.
As in the case where a defendant enters a guilty plea, where
a defendant agrees to be found guilty to one offense on
consent of the prosecution to dismiss other charges, the
judge can consider the factual basis of the dismissed charges
when imposing sentence. United States v. Marines, 535 F.2d

- 7 -

552 (10th Cir. 1976); United States v. Majors, W F.2d 1321
(10th Cir. 1970, cert, denied, 420 U.S. 932 (1975). A court
is also warranted in increasing the sentence when it believes
that the defendant has undermined the judicial system through
repeated perjury. United States v. Grayson, 98 S.Ct. 2610
(1978).

III.

Evidence As To Each Defendant
Concerning the Count On Which
That Defendant Was Convicted.

A. Henning Heldt
----------------

As previously noted, defendant Heldt was convicted of
count 23 of the indictment: conspiracy to obstruct a criminal
investigation, obstruct justice, harbor and conceal a fugitive,
and make false declarations before a federal Grand Jury. The
evidence introduced by the United States demonstrates that
defendant Heldt was a highly active participant in this
conspiracy from its inception. Indeed, not only by virtue of
his position as the highest official in the Guardian's Office
in the United States but also as reflected in the conduct in
which he engaged, defendant Heldt fulfilled the role of the
manager and strategist of both conspiracies throughout their
existence. .

Thus, on June 13, 1976, merely two days after Gerald
Bennett Wolfe's and Michael Meisner's encounter with Special
Agent Christine Hansen of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) in the library located in the United States Courthouse in
Washington, D.C., defendant Heldt met with Mr. Meisner and
defendants Snider and Weigand in Heldt's sixth floor offices
in Fifield Manor, Los Angeles, California (stip. 180), at
which time Heldt indicated that he had already read Mr.
Meisner's report of the June 11 incident. During the meeting,

- 8 -

defendant Heldt indicated that he and defendant Snider had
formulated a plan which called for the removal of both defendant
Wolfe and Mr. Meisner from the District of Columbia, stating
that this would render the FBI's search for the June 11
burglars impossible. (Stip. 181.) That meeting ended with
Heldt giving instructions to defendant Weigand and Mr. Meisner
to further analyze the above plan and an alternative one
formulated by defendants Weigand and Willardson and present
one for his (Heldt's) final approval. (Ld.) defendant Heldt's
approval of defendant Weigand's plan (stip. 176 et seq.) was
received by defendant Weigand later that some evening.

Clearly then, defendant Heldt took upon himself a
critical role in the earliest decisions and continued in that
role at every major point in the conspiracy. For example,
in September 1976 orders from defendant Heldt directing that
Mr. Meisner remain in Los Angeles so as to facilitate his .
concealment by the Guardian's Office, were conveyed by defen-
dant Weigand to defendant Hermann. (Stip. 201-202.) Similarly,
in the following month, defendant Heldt expressly approved a
trip by a Guardian's Office official to the District of
Columbia to check on security there and on the continued
functioning of two of Scientology's covert operatives in
Government agencies. Throughout this time period, and up
through the point of Mr. Meisner's flight from the Guardian's
Office, defendant Heldt was a recipient of all significant
Guardian's Office correspondence concerning the cover-up.
Thus, on July 2, 1976, two days following the arrest of
defendant Wolfe, Heldt received a copy of a report from
defendant Weigand to defendant Hubbard which related the
false story that defendant Wolfe had given the FBI regarding
the forging of Government credentials, and the instructions

- 9 -

given by defendant'Weigand to defendant Wolfe concerning his
future contacts with Church of Scientology facilities and
personnel. (Stip. 194 and n.140.) On August 30, 1976, he
received another report in which Mr. Weigand outlined a plan
to have Mr. Meisner removed from the country (stip. 198-199),
as well as a subsequent letter where defendant Weigand
suggested the possible basis whereby the FBI had identified
Mr. Meisner. (Stip. 200, n.145 and accompanying text.) Then
on September 18 he made personal notations on another letter
from defendant Weigand to defendant Hubbard which set forth
alternative courses of action concerning the Guardian's
Office disposition of Mr. Meisner's case. (Stip. 204, n.150
and accompanying text.) . Ten days later, defendant Heldt
received a copy of a letter written by Morris Budlong, the
Deputy Guardian for Information World-Wide, to defendant
Weigand outlining a plan whereby Mr. Meisner would be hidden
in "some out of the way large city" until the Guardian's
Office would "have some idea of which way things are moving".
(Stip. at 207209, Government Exhibit No. 13D.' While the
above correspondence was going back-and-forth between various
officials of the Guardian's Office, defendant Heldt was
aware of the existence of an arrest warrant for Mr. Meisner.
(Stip. 196 et seq., Government Exhibit No. 123.) In addition,
defendant Heldt knew of the FBI's request for exemplars of Mr.
Meisner's handwriting, having been so informed on October 9,
1976 in a letter from defendant Hermann. (Stip. 212.) In
the face of this knowledge, defendant Heldt not only failed
to perform his legal responsibilities in regard to this
investigation, but actively monitored Mr. Meisner's movements
(see Government Exhibit No. 140, stip. 222) to ensure that he
would cooperate with the Guardian's Office plans. (Stip.217.)

- 10 -

In a similar fashion, he monitored the progress of defendant
Wolfe's case in the District "of Columbia, urging its speedy
disposition so that the federal investigation might be termi-
nated. (Stip. 218.) Of course, defendant Heldt received
defendant Hermann's detailed historical summary of the conspir-
acy at the end of November 1976 (stip. 220 et seq. and
n.163) and his subsequent briefing paper and summary of
January 7, 1977 in which Hermann informed Heldt, once again,
of the Grand Jury investigation taking place in regard to
defendant Wolfe's case and of the FBI's continued search for
Mr. Meisner. (Stip. 225 et seq.)

In March 1977, defendant Heldt's involvement became even
more immediate (in response to a request from Mr. Meisner)
(stip. 232) and Heldt, so informed another defendant in a
letter of April 1, 1977. (Stip. at 233)-3/ Throughout
April 1977, defendant Heldt was involved in much correspondence
concerning the delays in ending defendant Wolfe's case, and
had to answer complaints from his seniors. (Stip. 232-238.)
It was at this time that defendant Heldt ordered unindicted
co-conspirator Brian Andrus to create a cover story in Canada
to explain Mr. Meisner's disappearance when he finally decided
it would be to their advantage to surrender Mr. Meisner to
the FBI. (Stip. 237-238.) Moreover, it was defendant Heldt
who ordered the Information Bureau to "arrange to restrain
Herb and prevent him from leaving, and to guard him so that
he does not ["return to D.C. and handle the scene as he sees
fit"]." (Stip. at 240.) This, of course, injected a criti-
cal element in the conspiracy -- the use of violence to

-------------------------
3/ It is worthy of note that this correspondence was in
a secret code, an indication of the degree of sophistication
with which defendants carried out this conspiracy. (See
Government Exhibit No. 148)

- 11 -

accomplish its goals. This clearly shows that this defendant
and his co-conspirators would stop at nothing to accomplish
their assigned tasks. Indeed, the California probation
officers' statements that the defendants did not have a
violent disposition reflects their total lack of familiarity
or understanding of the evidence in this case. Contempora-
neously, defendant Heldt also ordered the Guardian's Office
Legal Bureau to assume closer supervision and control of
defendant Wolfe's case. (Stip. 240-241.)

From April through June 1977, defendant Heldt assumed
virtually total daily control over the conduct of the conspiracy,
Thus, it was defendant Heldt who ordered defendants Willardson
and Weigand to "get control" over Mr. Meisner (stip. 242),
which order, of course, the latter two dutifully followed
on April 30, 1977. On May 1, he was made aware of the fact
that Mr. Meisner's guards had found it necessary to bind and
gag him, and on May 2, defendant Heldt approved a funds
request for these guards. (Stip. 244-245 and Government
Exhibits Nos. 164 and 165.) On May 30, it was defendant Heldt
who pleaded with Mr. Meisner to return to the Church (stip.
2l|9 et seq.) when the latter had left for Las Vegas, and it
was the defendant Heldt who met with Mr. Meisner the following
evening to assure him that his case was being supervised at the
highest levels of the Church. Finally, it was defendant
Heldt who met with Mr. Meisner in a last-ditch effort to gain
his confidence one-week before the latter's surrender to the
FBI; and defendant Heldt who, after Mr. Meisner's escape,
approved a plan to locate Mr. Meisner and return him to the
fold.

The foregoing recital demonstrates that one of two
individuals who provided leadership for the highly complex

- 12 -

cover-up conspiracy was defendant Heldt. In complete and
utter disregard for his lawful 'obligations and responsibili-
ties, defendant Heldt worked from beginning to end to insure,
as best he could, that the United States never would become
aware of the involvement of the Church of Scientology, its
Guardian's Office, and the other defendants and co-conspirators
in the burglaries, thefts, and buggings.

Defendant Heldt, in his statement to the probation officer,
contained in his presentence report, now seeks to convince
this Court that he is truly contrite for his criminal be-
havior. He states: "I regret any violation of the law, and
realize that in violating the law I injured not only myself,
my family, and my church, but also to some degree the system
of justice and law in this country to which I am dedicated."
Presentence Report at 5. The hypocrisy of that statement is
beyond belief. The evidence in this case establishes beyond
a shadow of doubt that defendant Heldt, instead of having
dedicated himself to our "system of justice and law," had
dedicated himself to the undermining of that very system.
He not only approved burglaries of the United States Courthouse,
but was a leading participant in a complex cover-up which
included the commission of perjury to a judicial body and
the destruction of evidence sought by that body. Moreover,
it is interesting to note that he only regrets "to some degree"
the harm which he caused "the system of justice and law in
this country." One wonders whether, in fact, the only
thing which this defendant and his co-conspirators really
regret is the harm they caused their organization and them-
selves by having been caught in the commission of their
crimes. This view finds support in defendant Heldt's con-
tinued assertion to the probation officer that "I feel that

- 13 -

what has occurred was at least in part provoked by Government
harrassment. . . ." Unfortunately, for this defendant and
his criminal co-defendants, that assertion no longer carries
any weight in view of the thousands of seized documents which
this Court has unsealed.

This defendant and his cohorts, a3 shown in section V
infra, carried thier campaign of crimes and vicious innuendos
against private organizations and citizens whom they sought
to destroy merely because they exercised the same First
Amendment rights behind which this defendant and his organiza-
tion have repeatedly sought refuge. Additionally, as the
Courts in the United Kingdom, before whom the defendant's
two fugitive co-conspirators attacked the United States
Government for alleged harrassraents, have found, the actions
taken by the United States Government were "required to
carry out its duty to protect the public at large." Judgment
of Stipendiary Magistrate W.E.C. Bobbins of 25 May 1979 at 1.
Indeed, after reviewing thousands of pages of documents
submitted to him by the defendants Kember and Budlong, the
British magistrate rejected the defendants' suggestion that
they had been persecuted by the United States Government
over the past thirty years. Id. at 2. That judgment was
affirmed on November 30, 1979, by the High Court of Justice
with the Lord Chief Justice in full agreement. Indeed,
before that Court, counsel for Ms. Kember repeatedly told
the Court that the United States of America had instituted
the present criminal action against the defendants in good
faith; that the United States would have been derelict in
its duty to uphold the law had it not prosecuted these defen-
dants. [Hearings before the High Court, November 12, 1979.]

- 14 -

Finally, defendant Heldt's assertion that "the policy
of the Church prohibits any illegality on the part of it's
members or staff. . . " is totally unfounded and incorrect.
The evidence in this case and the documents seized by the FBI
in Los Angelesv.establish beyond peradventure that the Church
and its leadership had, over the years, approved, condoned
and engaged in gross and widespread illegality. One, indeed,
wonders how it can even be suggested that the defendants and
their organization did not make illegal activities part and
parcel of their daily work.

We further submit that the defendant Heldt's statement
to the probation officer is not worthy of any credibility
whatsoever. In a sworn affidavit dated July 18, 1976,
submitted to a judicial body and appended hereto as Exhibit 1,
the defendant Heldt asserted that "I do know that Church
policy forbids illegalities" and that "express policy . . .
which I am legally and spiritually committed to forward,
forbids any illegal actions." Affidavit at 3. In fact, the
defendant Heldt on July 18, 1976, when he subscribed to that
affidavit under path, knew that for the preceding few years
he and the remainder of the top leadership of his organization
in England and the United States had ordered, sanctioned,
solicited, and rewarded, the commission of widespread viola-
tions of the law in the United States and in foreign countries.
Moreover, notwithstanding the alleged policy which defendant
Heldt alluded to, he and his co-defendants and co-conspirators
engaged for the next year in a professionally orchestrated
cover-up conspiracy which had, as its now acknowledged goal,
the undermining of the judicial system in. the District of
Columbia. That this conspiracy failed is due only to the
willingness of Michael Meisner to escape from his captors,

- 15 -

step forward, and assist the federal authorities, as well as
to the federal authorities determination not to allow harrass-
merit, dirty tricks/ and a vicious slander and libel campaign
by the defendants and their cohorts, to divert them from
their duty to enforce the law in a fair and even-handed
manner.

B. Duke Snider
--------------

As with defendant Heldt, defendant Snider was also found
guilty by this Court of the conspiracy charged In Count 23 of
the indictment. During the relevant time period encompassed
by this conspiracy, defendant Snider was the Deputy Deputy
Guardian for the United States, the second-ranking official
in the United States' hierarchy of the Guardian's Office.
Defendant Snider was present and active at several crucial
stages in the formulation and execution of the conspiracy.
The timing of this involvement reflects the crucial role
which defendant Snider performed.

Defendant Snider's first involvement came during the
June 13, 1976 meeting in defendant Heldt's office, two days
after Mr. Meisner and defendant Wolfe had their encounter with
the FBI. (Stip. 176 et seq.) Working jointly with defendant
Heldt, he formulated one of the alternative cover-up plans
considered by the defendants at the time this conspiracy was
initiated. He was informed of, and participated in, discus-
sions regarding the cover-up plan that was finally adopted.
(I_d.) Standing alone, this involvement at the critical
stage when the conspiracy was conceived merits for defendant
Snider the maximum period of incarceration provided by law.

However, this initial incident did not comprise defendant
Snider's only conduct in furthering the conspiracy. For
example, defendant Snider was prominent in the handling of

- 16 -

one of the early crises in the conspiracy's execution. In
September 1976, a police lieutenant who was a member of the
Church of Scientology in San Diego was directed,in violation
of his oath and duties, to make an inquiry through the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) to determine the specifics
of the arrest warrant for Mr. Meisner which had been issued
on August 5, 1976. That inquiry precipitated an FBI contact
to determine the reason for the lieutenant's inquiry. (Stip.
206-207.) In a letter to defendant Weigand written in defen-
dant Snider's own hand, the latter observed that the inquiry
by the officer had placed the Church in a vulnerable position
"to be accused of conspiring with this policemen to violate
the law." Defendant Snider, therefore, ordered defendant
Weigand to take whatever steps were necessary to handle the
problem. (Stip, 206.) By return letter, defendant Weigand
assured defendant Snider that the lieutenant was a Scientolo-
gist and would obey orders (Id.), and expressed that they
had "laid a nice false lead for the FBI which cant [sic] help
but help us while dispersing their investigation." (Id.)
Defendant Weigand further observed, for defendant Snider's
benefit, that a false lead and dispersion of investigative
resources "is one thing that can draw an investigation to a
quik [sic] close." (Ld.) In a return handwritten notation,
defendant Snider expressed his satisfaction with the situation,
stating that he was "glad to see it is under control." (Stip.
207.) This act shows defendant Snider's willingness to subvert
the law enforcement system whenever it suited his purpose
and that of his organization. Again, the United States sub-
mits that such satisfaction with the fact that law enforcement
officials would be hindered in their efforts to capture the
persons who had burglarized Government offices is inconsistent

- 17 -

with any inference of remorse for the illegal acts of burglary,
theft, and "bugging" in which defendant Snider had been
intimately involved. This lack of any sense of wrongdoing
argues strongly against any leniency by this Court. See
United States v. Grayson, supra.

Finally, it must be noted that defendant Snider was the
person called upon to calm Mr. Melsner when, in October 1976
the latter began to express a desire to return to the District
of Columbia. (Stip. 215.) Thus, on October 28, 1976, defen-
dant Snider met with Mr. Meisner to convince him of the
necessity for waiting to see what would happen with the
defendant Wolfe's case, and to remind Mr. Meisner of the
serious effect that his (Meisner's) actions would have on
the Church. (Stip. 216.) Confident in the fact that he had
averted a breakdown in the conspiracy plan, defendant Snider
reported to defendant Heldt following the meeting that Mr.
Meisner" is not a traitor and will cooperate." (Stip. 217.)

In sum, defendant Snider's position and conduct placed
him at the center of the cover-up. Defendant Snider's ac-
tions can only be described as cold-blooded, premeditated
attempts to subvert and frustrate the lawful processes of
the United States judicial system. The United States agrees
with the presentence report (at p. 11) that "definite
sanctions should be implemented by the Court." Such sanction,
we submit, must be in the form of a maximum prison sentence.

C. Richard Weigand
-------------------

Defendant Richard Weigand shared with defendant Heldt
the primary responsibilities for the planning and execution
of the cover-up conspiracy of which he was found guilty.
Indeed, in terms of ongoing daily management of the illegal

- 18 -

obstructive activities in which these defendants engaged, no
one surpassed Richard Weigand.

On the night of June 3.1, 1976, it was the defendant
Weigand who, through defendant Mitchell Hermann, issued the
order for Michael Meisner to fly to Los Angeles immediately
and to prepare a report of the encounter with the FBI in
the United States Courthouse. (Stip. 176-177.) Upon Mr.
Meisner's arrival in Los Angeles, it was to the office of
defendant Weigand that he went for his first debriefing.
(Id.) And it was in that same office that shortly thereafter,
the defendants Weigand and Gregory Willardson met with
Michael Meisner and engaged in the initial attempts to
formulate alternative cover-up plans in their conspiracy
against the federal judicial system in the nation's capital.
(Stip. 178-183.)

The "uncontested" Stipulation of Evidence into which
defendant Weigand entered establishes that, once the plot
had been hatched, he undertook, substantial responsibility
for seeing that it was carried to fruition. In some instances,
he acted upon his own authority, while in others he served
as a conduit for his superiors. Moreover, for much of the
conspiracy, defendant Weigand was also responsible for the
dissemination of information throughout the Guardian's Office,
both in the United States and Great Britain. In whatever
capacity, defendant Weigand remained center-stage until one
month prior to the end of the cover-up when Scientology re-
moved him from office. A few examples of defendant Weigand's
conduct will amply demonstrate the extent of his involvement,
and, consequently, the reason that the United States believes
that defendant Weigand must receive the maximum sentence of
incarceration.

- 19 -

In this regard, it is significant to note that it was in
defendant Weigand's home that Mr. Meisner resided for the
summer following his return to Los Angeles on June 12, 1979.
(Stip. 189.) Similarly, it was in defendant Weigand's office
that Mr. Meisner worked while preparing a detailed report for
defendant Weigand explaining the burglaries of Government
offices which defendant Wolfe and Mr. Meisner had carried
out at, among others, defendant Weigand's orders. Defendant
Weigand, on one of his trips to Washington, D.C., in fact,
made a surreptitious entry into the IRS building on Constitution
Avenue, N.W., for the purpose of forging for himself an IRS
identification card. Thus, there is no question that defen-
dant Weigand was intimately aware, of the extent of the illegal
activities of the Guardian's Office.

As regards the handling of defendant Wolfe's case in the
District of Columbia, it was defendant Weigand to whom the .
defendant Hermann reported when the latter first became aware
of Wolfe's arrest on June 30, 1976. (Stip. 191-192.) It was
defendant Weigand who conveyed this information up the
chain-of-command, often using the secret code which the
Guardian's Office had developed for discussing illegal acti-
vities. (Stip. 192, text and n.138.) When inquiries were
made by his superiors, it was defendant Weigand who responded.
(See, e.g., Stip. 193-19*1, 198, 210-211.) Conversely, it
was through defendant Weigand that subordinate officials of
the Guardian's Office communicated to senior Church officials.
(See, e.g., Stip. 195, 212-213, 231.)

As the person in California who had primary responsibility
for handling Mr. Meisner's situation on a day-to-day basis
(until defendant Heldt took over in March 1977), defendant
Weigand was the official who laid out the plans and options

- 20 -

for his superiors (stip. 198 et. seq.; 203 et seq.: 223 et
); who instructed Mr. Meisner to sever all outward
connections to the Guardian's Office when a warrant was
issued for his arrest (stip. 200); and who generally saw to
it that orders from senior officials were executed properly.
(See, e.g., stip. 201-202.) When the crises arose over the
San Diego policeman's NCIC inquiry, discussed above, it was
to defendant Weigand that defendant Snider turned for efficient
handling of the situation.(Stip. 205-207.) Finally, it was
defendant Weigand who coordinated the efforts in April, 1977
to forcibly restrain Mr. Meisner when he indicated his inten-
tions to return to the District of Columbia to handle his
case on his own. (Stip. 238 et.seq.) Thus, on April 30,
1977f at approximately 2:15 a.m., defendant Weigand was the
person who, along with defendant Willardson and unindicted
co-conspirator Brian Andrus, visited Mr. Meisner to inform
him that he would no longer be permitted to make "demands
and threats on the Church," and "that he was to start.becoming
a decent, cooperative, contributing part of the venture
[conspiracy] and nothing else was to be tolerated." (Stip.
242 et seq.)

It is interesting to note that neither defendants
Weigand nor Willardson submitted a statement of their own to
the Probation Office. Instead, their counsel submitted on
their behalf a statement which amounts to no more than a
restatement of the propaganda line of the defendants1 organi-
zation. While indicating that his clients were "remorseful"
and "contrite" for the consequences of their criminal acts,
counsel puts in last place the harm caused to the "legitimate
public institutions" of this country. One would have ex-
pected that attorneys who are officers of the Court and an

- 21 -

essential ingredient in the protection of the judicial system
from any attempt to subvert it, would, at the very least,
recognize that the greatest damage caused by the defendants
Weigand's and Willardson's crimes was to the judicial institu-
tions.

Moreover, counsel parrots the Church's assertion that
the defendants acted "out of fear that the investigation
[of the federal Grand Jury] was but one further step in the
destruction of the Church," and contends that the defendants
"believed their conduct to be a moral and principled re-
sponse" to the investigation. Willardson and Weigand Pro-
bation Reports at 5. (Emphasis added.) We submit that these
statements are absolutely outrageous and establish that the
defendants have yet to recognize the severity or consequences
of their oriminal conspiracies. As in defendant Heldt's
case, they seek to hide behind a religious cloak. Yet no
criminal can be permitted to seek refuge behind the trappings
of a religion. Certainly, the Watergate defendants attempted
to hide behind the cloak of official secrecy and national
interest, yet the Court recognized their actions to be nothing
but a criminal subversion of the judicial system to save
their own skin. The defendants in the instant case stand
in no different a position. To suggest that the defendants'
conduct was "the only principled response" to a federal
judicial investigation into serious criminal activities is
so outrageous as to offend fundamental decency.

Finally, the United States rejects the evaluation of the
probation officer as totally unfounded and contradicted by the
"uncontested" evidence in this case. Indeed the California
probation officer's statement either suggests that he failed
to read the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence or that

- 22 -

he did not understand the nature of the defendant Weigand's
actions. Firstly, the probation officer questions whether
in fact defendant Weigand held the "very responsible posi-
tion" set out in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence.
Secondly, the officer astonishingly concludes that defendant
Weigand acted "as a functionary and not as a determiner of
policy." We submit that such a report is useless and not
worthy of reliance by this Court. The facts outlined above
and in the stipulation of evidence, as well as in section V
infra, leave no doubt as to the role of the defendant Weigand
as a "determiner of policy" and a major force in the con-
spiracies set out in the indictment.

It is clear that defendant Richard Weigand coordinated
the Guardian's Office's initial burglary and theft con-
spiracy as well as the conspiratorial efforts to cover-up
its prior illegal and unlawful activities from beginning to
end. In light of this conduct, the United States submits
that the only appropriate response is the imposition of a
sentence calling for the maximum period of incarceration.

D. Gregory Willardson
----------------------

Along with defendants Heldt, Snider and Weigand, defendant
Willardson was one of the initial architects of the cover-up
plan. (Stip. 178 jet seq.) Indeed, defendant Willardson was
one of the first two Guardian's Office officials to read Mr.
Meisner's report concerning the encounter with the FBI (stip.
177) and participated, along with Mr. Meisner, in the first
meetings which defendant Weigand held in his office on June
12 and June 13, 1976. (Stip. 180.) Moreover, defendant
Willardson was one of the persons responsible for implementing
defendant Heldt's order to evaluate the alternative cover-up
plans and present one to him for his approval. (Stip. 182.)

- 23 -

On June 14, defendant Willardson met with defendants Weigand
and Wolfe and Mr. Meisner to create the cover story which
defendant Wolfe was to give to the FBI. (Stip. 184.) On
that same day, defendant Willardson participated in the
formulation of "mission orders" for defendant Hermann in the
District of Columbia, which required that defendant Hermann
find a lawyer for defendant Wolfe and supervise Wolfe pending
his arrest. (Stip. 188.) Willardson then participated in
drilling defendant Wolfe on the cover-up story. (.Id..) That
evening Mr. Meisner, having already been disguised pursuant
to defendant Weigand1s orders so as to facilitate concealment,
stayed at the defendant Willardson's home. (Stip. 188.) On
June 18, defendant Willardson received and read the report
written by Mr. Meisner relating to the burglaries and thefts
which had taken place in the District of Columbia.

On September 10, 1976, defendant Willardson, along with
defendant Hermann, moved Mr. Meisner to a new location for
the purpose of frustrating the FBI investigation, notwithstanding
the Guardian's Office knowledge that a warrant had been issued
for Mr. Meisner's arrest and that Mr. Meisner was, at the
time, considered a fugitive from justice. (Stip. 198, 202.)
Thus, he was clearly involved in that part of the conspiracy
aimed at harboring and concealing a fugitive.

Similarly, defendant Willardson was involved in that
aspect of the conspiracy concerned with the obstruction of the
investigation taking place in the District of Columbia and
the prompt disposition of defendant Wolfe's then-pending case.
Thus, in early November 1976, defendant Willardson carried
out an order of defendant Heldt requiring him (Willardson)
to instruct defendant Wolfe to "push his lawyer to get the
scene handled." (Stip. 218.) Of course, the purpose of

- 24 -

these efforts to have defendant Wolfe's case disposed of
quickly was to thwart the FBI's attempts to find out the whole
story about the burglaries of the United States Courthouse.
Defendant Willardson maintained this active role in
furtherance of the conspiracy to the very end. In April
1977, when Michael Meisner was increasingly indicating his
readiness to return to the District of Columbia, defendant
Willardson accompanied the defendant Welgand to Mr. Meisner's
apartment in the middle of the night to inform him that his
lack of cooperation would no longer be tolerated. (Stip. 242.)
It was defendant Willardson who searched Mr. Meisner's apart-
ment to remove and destroy any evidence connecting Mr.
Meisner to the Church of Scientology (Stip. 242-243.) V
And when Mr. Meisner eventually did escape, it was defendant
Willardson who arranged to have all fingerprints removed
from Mr. Meisner's apartment (stip. 272) and to take addi-
tional steps to hide Mr. Meisner's connection with the Church.
Defendant Willardson explained this to defendant Heldt in a
handwritten letter. (Government Exhibit No. 175.) Perhaps
most significantly, defendant Willardson ordered the removal
of all incriminating documents from the Guardian's Office
and their placement in the "Red Box", the. locale for any
document containing "proof that a Scientologist is involved
in criminal activities." (Government Exhibit No. 219 at
Stip. 274-275.) The document containing the explanation of
the "Red Box" and instructions for its use was seized from
defendant Willardson's office. (Stip. 275 n.207.) Given
this integral participation in the cover-up, it is not sur-
prising that defendant Willardson was the person to whom

---------------
2_/ A letter from the defendant Hubbard to Mr. Meisner
acknowledging the use of guards was seized from defendant
Willardson's office files. (Stip. 243 n.185.)

Moreover, defendant Willardson's participation in the
conspiracy to burglarize Government offices, steal Government
documents, "bug" Government meetings, and forge Government
credentials is abundantly set out in the "uncontested" stipu-
lation of evidence. Indeed, it was the defendant Willardson,
who in a letter dated 20 May 1975 to the U.S. Directorate
Secretary World-Wide set out the legal reasons why the crimes
he and the other defendants were committing were felonies.
(Stip. 63-65, Government Exhibit No. 32.) In that letter, a
copy of which was sent to, among others, defendants Heldt
and Weigand, Willardson stated that "a large portion, if not
the majority, of our high priority successful Collections
actions fall into the category of second degree burglary,
which is a felony." (Stip. 63.) If anything, this letter
indicated a clear recognition on defendant Willardson's part
that he was committing serious criminal acts. It also esta-
blishes that this knowledge did not in anyway alter his
actions or those of his co-defendants. Furthermore, it belies
his counsel's statement to the Los Angeles probation officer
that such actions were "moral and principled." Willardson
Presentence Report at 5, see also supra.

Finally, it renders the probation officer's evaluation
highly questionable and, indeed, useless. One is amazed,
in view of the evidence, at the naivete of the probation
officer and his incredible lack of understanding of the
facts. How, in light of the facts, one can state that
"Mr. Willardson . . . does not appear ... to be a threat
to property or to citizens in the community" is beyond

- 26 -

imagination. After all, it was in defendant Willardson'o
office that the bugging and lock-picking equipment was found
by the FBI. It was also in that office that FBI Special
Agent Benavitez told the Court he had found a leather black-
jack. One wonders why a peaceful person would have such an
item in his possession. Similarly, defendant Willardson
was an active participant in the kidnapping of Mr. Meisner.
We submit that that act is more consistent with a person who is
a danger to the community.

In light of the above, the United States is amazed by
the probation officer's statement that defendant Willardson
"appears . . . to be a man who can be trusted, and that evalua-
tion probably was also made by the Church leaders who encouraged
him to participate in this rather awkward tactic to defend
the perquisites and personnel of the Church of Scientology."
Presentence Report at 10. Such a statement is reminiscent
of the White House's description of the Watergate burglary
as a "third-rate burglary." Certainly, based on this proba-
tion officer's statement, Messrs. John Dean, Jeb Stuart
Magruder, G. Gordon Llddy, et al., could have been said to
be trustworthy and not a "threat to property or to citizens
in the community." Yet eminent jurists of this very Court
disagreed and imposed severe sentences of incarceration in
those cases.

E. Cindy Raymond
-----------------

The defendant Cindy Raymond similarly had an active role
in both the burglary and theft conspiracy as well as the
cover-up conspiracy. She both initiated programs and pro-
jects as well as carried out the stategic plans formulated by

---------------------
5/ The Court may also recall the testimony adduced by
the defense at the motion to suppress hearings about the
seizure of guns.

- 27 -

her superiors. Indeed, subsequent to mid-March 1977, she
fulfilled the role of "cover-up" coordinator, replacing
defendant Hermann. (Stip. 230-231 e_t sec[.) However, her
active role in furthering this conspiracy began long before
that promotion.

The evidence demonstrates that much of the Guardian's
Office correspondence dealing with the cover-up was kept in or
near defendant Raymond's office. (See, e.g., nn. 136, 138,
139, 111, 142, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153 and documents
referred to therein which related the earliest formulations
of the cover-up plans and significant event3, including the
arrest of defendant Wolfe on June 30, 1976.) This evidence
demonstrates that defendant Raymond was fully aware of and
assisted in every aspect of the cover-up and the earlier
conspiracy.

The evidence also establishes that it was defendant
Raymond who informed Mr. Meisner that false handwriting
exemplars were being given to the FBI, demonstrating her
complicity in the obstruction of the FBI's investigation.
(Stip. 209.) Furthermore, it was defendant Raymond who, at
this same time, compiled the list of the District of Columbia
burglaries and the details of those crimes. (Stip. 210.)
Throughout the fall and winter of 1976, defendant Raymond met
with Mr. Meisner approximately once or twice a week to discuss
the ongoing cover-up. (Stip. 215.) When Mr. Meisner expressed
his concern over the course of events, it was defendant
Raymond who arranged a meeting between Mr. Meisner and his
long-time friend, defendant Duke Snider. By virtue of her
position as National Secretary and because of her active
involvement, defendant Raymond was one of the persons who
received defendant Hermann's November 30, 1976 briefing

- 28 -

summary (Government Exhibit No. 139) outlining the history of
and plans for the cover-up. (Stip. 221-222.) On December 10,
1976, defendant Raymond outlined the refined cover-up plan
for defendant Weigand. (Stip. 222-223.) This included the
plan for containing the FBI investigation. (Stip. 223.)
Defendant Raymond's handwriting appears on some of the most
incriminating documents generated during this period. (See,
e.g., Government Exhibit No. 168.)

Defendant Raymond's appointment to the position of cover-
up coordinator in March 1977 reflected the confidence that
her superiors had in her ability to push the cover-up plan
to a successful conclusion. (Stip. 229-231.) That the con-
spiracy was ultimately unsuccessful in achieving the desired
results was not due to any lack of effort or initiative on
Raymond's part. Included, among these efforts, was a "friends
request" for the guards who had forcibly restrained Mr.
Meisner when the latter contemplated escape from the Guardian's
Office. (Stip. 244.) Indeed, as of May 13, 1977, defendant
Raymond was in complete charge of those guards (Stip. 247
n.190.) When Mr. Meisner eventually escaped from those
guards the first time on May 29, 1977, it was defendant
Raymond who notified her Guardian's Office superiors and
instructed the briefing of all persons who knew that Mr.
Meisner had been harbored by Scientology. (Stip. 249 n.191.)
Upon Mr. Meisner's return to Los Angeles, it was defendant
Raymond who was ordered to locate a new, more secure, place
to forcefully hide Mr. Meisner. (Stip. 251-252.) Finally,
defendant Raymond was one of the persons assigned to continue
the elaboration of the cover-up story subsequent to Mr.
Meisner1s second and final escape. (Stip. 272.)

- 29 -

Regarding the first conspiracy, the "uncontested"
evidence 3hows that the defendant Raymond recruited the defen-
dant Wolfe as a covert operative to be placed at the IRS.
She was also immediate supervisor of Mr. Meisner and as such
in constant contact with him regarding the almost daily
burglaries being committed. [See also her role in criminal
activities against private organizations and citizens in
section V infra.]

In view of the above, it is hard to understand how
defendant Raymond could state that she "became aware" in 1974
"of the infiltration of certain government agencies," and
that she did not believe that the activities were "illegal."
Presentence Report at 7. She had to have been aware of the
infiltration of Government agencies since she initiated many
of them, including that of the IRS. That a person of her
age and intelligence did not know that burglaries, thefts,
buggings, forgeries, destruction of evidence, perjury to a
Grand Jury, harboring a fugitive, and other serious crimes
were illegal is so mind-boggling as to be absolutely incredi-
ble and unworthy of belief. Indeed, it indicates that Ms.
Raymond still fails to understand the serious nature of her
crimes. Her insistence in hiding behind the religious tenets
of her organization to explain her criminal activities not
only casts grave doubts upon her own remorse, but also upon
the representations of her co-defendants that their religious
tenets prohibited the commission of illegal acts. In this
instance as well, the Los Angeles probation officer appears
to have been clearly in the dark as to the evidence when
he wrote his "evaluation" of the defendant Raymond, although
even he had to recognize that "she actively participated" in
her criminal activities. Presentence Report at 10.

- 30 -

In sura, defendant Raymond was aware of and actively
participated in both conspiracies from start to finish. Such
activities necessitate forceful treatment from this Court,
in the form of a maximum period of incarcertion.

Gerald Bennett Wolfe
--------------------

While Gerald Bennett Wolfe did not have the strategy-
planning role of the defendants already discussed, he
nonetheless played a pivotal role in the defendants1 concerted
endeavors to cover-up the burglaries, thefts, and buggings
they had perpetrated. Thus, it was Wolfe who willingly and
willfully lied to the federal Grand Jury during its investiga-
tion into the burglaries and thefts which he had committed
on. behalf of the Church of Scientology. However, Wolfe's
involvement in the cover-up did not begin with those perjurious
statements, and his false declarations do not encompass the
entirety of his criminal acts in this regard.

On June 14, 1976, only three days after his encounter
with the FBI in the United States Courthouse, defendant Wolfe
met with defendants Willardson and Weigand and Mr. Meisner to
prepare the cover story which defendant Wolfe was to give to
the FBI. (Stip. 184.) During that meeting, the details of
the cover-up story previously outlined by defendants Heldt,
Snider, Weigand and Willardson were created. (Stlp. 185-187.)
On the following day, subsequent to his return to the District
of Columbia, defendant Wolfe discussed the plan with defendant
Hermann, and then met with the Scientology-selected lawyer to
give him the agreed-upon story. (Stip. 188.) Thus, it is
clear that, from the outset, defendant Wolfe was critically
involved in the conspiracy of which he was found guilty by
this Court.

- 31 -

Following his arrest by the, FBI on June 30, 1976, defen-
dant Wolfe began to actively execute the cover-up story. He
told the United States Attorney's Office that the false cre-
dentials he had forged with Mr. Meisner were part of "[a]
lark gone sour." (Stip. 193.) Far from being an unwilling
participant in the cover-up, defendant Wolfe expressed concern
that the Government might attempt to strike a deal with him
to become a Government witness, a possibility which he found
highly distasteful. (Stip. 229.) Later on, defendnat Wolfe
gave his probation officer and District Judge Thomas A.
Flannery the same false story which he had earlier given
the prosecutors and which he eventually told the federal
Grand Jury. Certainly, this was not the expression of a
person coerced into "going along."

Of course, defendant Wolfe declined the invitation to
cooperate with the government in return for a guilty plea to
an unlawful entry charge carrying a maximum of six months
incarceration. Thus, on May 18, 1977 he entered a guilty
plea to a felony charge of wrongful use of a Government seal,
which plea was a crucial stage in the cover-up plan. (Stip.
246-247.) Then, on June 10, 1977, defendant Wolfe was
sentenced on the charge, following which he was subpoenaed to
appear before the federal Grand Jury. (Stip. 252.) During
his testimony under oath, defendant Wolfe lied on no fewer
than four occasions, giving the precise story that the defen-
dants had previously constructed with his assistance. (Stip.
255-265.) Indeed, that testimony conformed in every detail
to the prepared story. Again, we suggest that this was not
a half-hearted endeavor on his part.

As further indication of defendant - Wolfe's willingness
to participate in the cover-up, it must be noted that defendant

- 32 -

Wolfe immediately went to the Church of Scientology office
the District of Columbia so that he could be debriefed. (Stip,
265.) The purpose was, of course, to enable the Guardian's
Office to conform other testimony to Wolfe's. (Id.) Copies
of the debrief were circulated throughout the Guardian's
Office and indeed given to Mr. Meisner himself, (Id.) Thus,
all defendants except for defendant Thomas were aware of
defendant Wolfe's false declarations.

Had defendant Wolfe agreed to help the investigation,
his knowledge of the details of the burglaries and thefts
would have been invaluable. However, defendant Wolfe did not
choose the honest path. Consequently, his sentence must
relfect this conscious choice to subvert the lawful processes
of this Court.

As this Court is aware, defendant Wolfe, at his counsel's
direction, declined to give his version of the events in
question to the Probation Office of this Court. This together
with the defendant Wolfe's behavior and demeanor throughout
these proceedings reflect his totally amoral reaction to
the charges to which he pled guilty on June 10, 1977 and of
which he was found guilty by this Court on October 26, 1979.
Of course, defendant Wolfe stands before this Court as
twice convicted felon. To suggest, as does the Los Angeles
probation officer, that defendant Wolfe has been "manipulated
by the upper echelon of the Church of Scientology" is similar
to suggesting that James McCord in the Watergate burglary
had been manipulated by the White House and,therefore, should
escape the severe punishment which District Judge John J.
Sirica imposed on him. That argument is as absurd in the
instant case as it was in the Watergate case. Indeed, the
probation officer, must have recognized that fact when he

- 33 -

concluded his evaluation by stating that "considering the
nature of the offense and the defendant's willing involvement,
a sanction in the form of a suitable punishment is warranted."
Presentence Report at 11. We submit that the only suitable
punishment here, is a maximum sentence of incarceration.

Mitchell Hermann
----------------

Notwithstanding his substantial role in the formulation
and execution of the cover-up scheme,6/ the Government agreed
to allow the guilty finding in regard to defendant Hermann to
be entered on Count One of the indictment. The evidence
demonstrates that defendant Hermann was equally important to
the consummation of the conspiracy charged in that count as
he was in the cover-up conspiracy.

In July, 1971!, when defendant Snider approved a project
to implement Jane Kember's order of November 21, 1973, requiring
the covert obtaining of documents in Washington, D.C., regarding
Interpol, defendant Hermann was the director of the branch
within the District of Columbia Information Bureau assigned
to acquire those documents. Thus, that project was assigned
to him. (Stip. 16.)

Also in- the summer of 1974, defendant Hermann, along
with Mr. Meisner, interviewed Scientologists for the purpose
of choosing a person to be placed as a covert operative at
IRS headquarters. That covert operative was to obtain all
documents in the IRS concerning Scientology. (Stip. 17-18.)
Subsequent to October, 1974 when Guardian Order (GO) 136.1
was issued, calling for the infiltration of numerous Government

------------------
6/ The evidence establishes that defendant Hermann was
involved in the cover-up scheme from its very inception.
Thus, defendant Hermann received the call from Mr. Meisner
on June 11, 1976 relating the encounter with the FBI in the
United States Courthouse, . and relayed to Mr. Meisner the
(Footnote continued on next page.)

As part of his duties in this regard, defendant Hermann
participated in the bugging of the IRS conference concerning
Scientology on November 1, 1971*. (Stip. 22-32.) He was one
of the persons who first entered the IRS building to locate
the conference room (stip. 23) and then accompanied unindicted
co-conspirator Don Alverzo to place the "bug" in that room.
(Stip. 24.) He also re-entered the conference room subsequent
to the meeting to remove the "bug" and, in the process stolen,
various papers which those in attendance had left behind.
(Stip. 25.) The criminal implications of this act were well-
recognized by those defendants who were aware of this activity,
as reflected in a letter from defendant Snider to Morris
Hudlong urging great caution in the handling of the bugging
transcript. (Stip. 30.)

-----------------------------
6/ (Footnote continued from previous page.)
instructions of defendant Weigand in order to avoid detection
by the FBI. (Stip, 171* et seq.) Following his participa-
tion in the formulation of "The cover-up (stip. 182-183),
defendant Hermann undertook the supervision of defendant
Wolfe upon the latter's return to the District of Columbia.
(Stip. 188.) Subsequently, defendant Hermann was the person
primarily responsible for coordinating activities in the
District of Columbia, and for keeping his superiors in Los
Angeles informed of District of Columbia events. (See,
e.g. Stip. 191 et_ seq., 212, 227.) The extent of his
involvement in, and knowledge of, the defendants' wilfull
attempts to subvert the Grand Jury's investigation of the
burglaries and thefts, is reflected in Government Exhibits
Nos. 139, 143, and 144. (Stip. 220-229.) Those three docu-
ments are briefing memoranda; the first outlines burglaries
and thefts in the District of Columbia and the cover-up
story which had been prepared; the second briefs the Guardian's
Office on the course of the FBI investigation and defendant
Wolfe's case; and the third further amplifies the cover-up
story.
While these activities do not indicate the totality of
defendant Hermann13 involvement, they are representative
of that involvement and reflect the willingness and wilfull-
ness with which he engaged in the criminal activities that
marked the cover-up.

- 35 -

It was. defendant Hermann who initially supervised
defendant Wolfe during the early days of his employment at
the IRS. (Stip. 40.) In this capacity he became intimately
aware of defendant Wolfe's data-gathering activities, reporting
on those activities to Mr. Meisner, among others. (Stip. 40-41.)
Indeed, defendant Hermann participated in a "trial run" at
the IRS in December 1974 to demonstrate to defendant Wolfe
the ease with which offices could be entered and documents
stolen. (Stip. 37-38.) Along these same lines, it was at
defendant Hermann's home that defendant Wolfe was first
introduced to Mr. Meisner in December 1974. (Stip. 40-41.)
At that meeting, defendant Hermann instructed defendant Wolfe
to continue obtaining IRS documents from the office of IRS
attorney Barbara Bird. (Stip. 41.) As the evidence esta-
blishes, all documents obtained in the District of Columbia
were forwarded to the Guardian's Office headquarters in Los
Angeles. Subsequent to January, 1976, almost all such documents,
and the memoranda describing them, were sent directly to defen-
dant Hermann, who held the position of Southeast US Secretary
within the Information Bureau, and as such exercised immediate
supervision over the Information Bureau in the District of
Columbia. (Stip. 44.) However, from January through March 1975,
when he was transferred to Chicago, the defendant Hermann
exercised immediate supervision over defendants Wolfe and
Thomas as well as other covert operatives including one at the
Drug Enforcement Administration and three others in private
industry. (Stip. 46-47.) In this capacity he wrote Government
Exhibit No. 13, a memorandum to defendant Raymond summarizing
documents stolen from the IRS Chief Counsel's file room
pursuant to GO 1361, Target 10.(Stip. 47.)

- 36 -

During his tenure in 1976 as Southeast US Secretary,
defendant Hermann received and forwarded numerous stolen
documents and memoranda regarding those documents. (S_ee, e.g. ,
Government Exhibits Nos. 46, 59, 60, 61.) He was also the
person who notified Mr. Meisner that Don Alverzo would be
returning to the District of Columbia to assist in gaining
entry to IRS offices which had been placed in a special high
security area. (Stip. 101.) Defendant Hermann reported on
Alverzo's "mission" in Government Exhibit 56D.(Stip. 104.)
It was defendant Hermann who recommended that Mr. Meisner be
given an award for his achievements in the burglaries of IRS
offices noting that "10-12 feet of material" had been obtained
from the IRS. (Stlp. 118-119.) It was also defendant Hermann
who directed Mr. Meisner to obtain a false IRS identification
card (stip. 119-120), and it was defendant Hermann who moni-
tored the illegal activities through June 11, 1976, including
the burglaries into, and theft of documants from, the various
offices within the Department of Justice (see, e.g., Government
Exhibits Nos. 93 and 95) and the office of Assistant United
States Attorney Nathan Dodell. (Stip. 157-159 and Government
Exhibits Nos. 98-100, 103 and 104.)

The telephone call placed by Mr. Meisner to defendant
Hermann after the June 11, 1976 encounter with the FBI agents
reflects the defendant Hermann's critical position in both
conspiracies. Subsequent to that phone call, defendant
Hermann initiated the Guardian's Office response to this
crisis situation, which, of course, led to the cover-up
conspiracy. (Stip. 174 et seq.)

In his statement to the Los Angeles probation officer
defendant Hermann also attempted to justify his criminal

- 37 -

behavior by suggesting that he acted in response to his "per-
ceived persecution" of his Church. Presentence Report at
5-6. In light of his criminal activities against the American
Medical Association, Clearwater Mayor Gabriel Cazares, and
others as outlined in section V infra, his explanation must be
rejected. If the defendants and their organization perceived
that they were being persecuted they should have resorted
to the lawful means available to all citizens for the redress
of grievances. Violations of the law and the subversion of
the judicial system can never be justified.

As the above recitation clearly dsmonstrates, defendant
Hermann was involved in and was aware of, virtually every
aspect of the numerous burglaries and thefts, the IRS bugging,
and the forgeries of Government credentials charged in that
conspiracy. Indeed, he acted as a conduit for the flow of
information through the various branches of the Guardian's
Office. As the probation officer concluded: "Covert activi-
ties such as the ones the defendant participtaed in, cannot
be condoned. The Court should impose a punishment sufficient
to impress this defendant of the fact that his offense behavior
will not be condoned." We submit that both to impress this
defendant and others a maximum term of incarceration is
mandated here.

Sharon Thomas
-------------

Defendant Sharon Thomas was found guilty of Count 17 of
the indictment, charging the theft of documents and photocopies
thereof from the office of John F. Shaw, Special Assistant to
the Assistant Attorney General for Adminstration on April 29
1976. At the time, Ms. Thomas was employed as a secretary
to two attorneys within the Information and Privacy Unit of
the Department of Justice's Civil Division. The evidence

- 38 -

establishes that Ms. Thomas was actively involved in the con-
spiracy to burglarize Government offices and steal Government
documents, and to that end had secured her position at the
behest of the Guardian's Office. Her duties included the
monitoring of Justice Department offices to give the Church
an early warning system to any potential subpoena, civil
suit, or arrest warrant against L. Ron Hubbard or Mary Sue
Hubbard, to steal documents legitimately withheld from the
Church under the FOIA, and to obtain all documents relating
to Interpol.

The documents which Ms. Thomas stole from Mr. Shaw's
office, with the assistance of Mr. Meisner, concerned Interpol
and the United States' continued participation in that organi-
zation. At the time of the theft, Mr. Shaw was the person
coordinating the transfer of Interpol from the Department of
the Treasury to the Department of Justice.(Stip. 150.) The
uncontested evidence establishes that Ms. Thomas and Mr.
Meisner carried out the theft by entering the Department of
Justice building in the District of Columbia after 5:30 p.m.
using defendant Thomas' identification card. (Stip. 151.)
They proceeded to Mr. Shaw's office on the first floor of
that building and entered it forcibly, by slipping the latch
through the use of a piece of plastic. (Id.) Once inside,
they discovered a five to six inch high stack of documents,
all related to Interpol. Mr. Meisner and Ms. Thomas then
removed these documents, and proceeded to the fourth floor
of the building where they made copies. The documents were
then returned to Mr. Shaw's desk (Id.), and the copies were
taken from the building.

In perpetrating this theft and others discussed at length
in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence, Ms. Thomas not

- 39 -

only forcibly entered offices which she had no right to be
in, and took property which was not hers, but also breached*'
the position of trust which she had been afforded by virtue
of her position as a Department of Justice employee. Simply
put, she was a covert operative, engaged in acts of deception
for the Church of Scientology.

Defendant Thomas had been a dedicated operative for the
Church of Scientology since the early 1970's when she was
recruited by the defendant Snider (who was then Assistant
Guardian for the District of Columbia) to be a covert opera-
tive within a dissident Scientology group. From November
1973 to July 1971*, defendant Thomas was a Scientology agent
at the American Psychiatric Association. She was then placed
as a covert agent at the United States Coast Guard Intelligence.
In 1976, she was to be transferred by the Guardian's Office
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service when the issuance
of Guardian Program Order 158 made her need at the Department
of Justice more imperative. Thus, the defendants determined
to have her infiltrate the Department of Justice. At all
times, Ms. Thomas was a willing and dedicated spy who worked
long and arduous hours plying her surreptitious vocation.
No one held a gun to her head as is suggested by her counsel
in his letter to the California probation officer. Indeed,
she even sought to solicit and recruit relatives to become
covert agents for her organizations. Counsel asserts that:

Ms. Thomas could have introduced substantial
testimony through herself and others, which
would have shown threats and coercion by Mr.
Meisner, who held a position of religious
power over her. I do not mean this in any
mystical sense, but in a political sense.

Presentence Report at 6. That statement can only be des-
cribed as bizarre and so absurd as to be dismissed out of
hand. No one forced Ms. Thomas to beg this Court to find her

- 40 -

guilty of her crimes. She did so voluntarily and so stated
to this Court under oath. She willingly, in open court and
in front of a packed courtroom of spectators and television
and newspaper reporters, signed the "uncontested stipulation
of evidence." 'We certainly hope that her counsel is not now
suggesting to this Court that defendant Thomas committed
perjury before this Court on October 26, 1979. We, therefore,
will ignore counsel's absurd remarks to the probation officer.
Of course, Ms. Thomas not only chose not to give her version
of the events but instead of indicating any contrition or
remorse for her criminal behavior, attempts, through her
counsel, to minimize her acts. She contends that "there is
no evidence alleged by the Government that she ever knew
of any of the activities other than those she directly parti-
cipated in." While, we submit the evidence clearly shows a
knowledge on her part of all Guardian Orders, certainly, the
acts she participated in evidence sufficiently serious criminal
acts. That she and her counsel fail to recognize that is in-
deed sad and indicates the fact that she has yet to understand
or take seriously this Court's guilty finding of October 26.
One can only hope that a maximum period of incarceration,
and the period for innerreflection which that would provide,
might assist Ms. Thomas in comprehending the gravity of her
actions.

Ms. Thomas' pattern of spying against private organiza-
tions and thefts from Government agencies does not represent
the whole scope of her criminal activities. Her attempts
to recruit others as spies indicates the wilfulness of her
conduct. However, much more than any of the above, her
conduct against Clearwater Mayor Gabriel Cazares, discussed
at length in section V infra, establishes the breadth of her

- 41 -

criminal mind. Involvement in setting up a fake hit-and-run
accident to in-effect blackmail a person (see section V infra)
is indeed a very serious offense.

Thus, the United States fails to understand the California
probation officer's suggestion that she "does not appear to
be a criminal type in any classic sense." Presentence Report
at 10. Nowhere does the probation officer mention defendant
Thomas' covert operations against the Coast Guard or the
Immigration and Naturalization Service -- offenses detailed
in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence. We submit that
the evidence set out in that stipulation and the facts set
out herein establish beyond question that defendant Thomas
is indeed "a criminal type" in the "classic sense." How she
differs from a person from the ghetto who wilfully commits
a crime is difficult to grasp. In fact, the only difference
is that she has presumably had the benefits of an education
and has led a life devoid of any financial deprivation.
Thus, to that extent her wilfull criminal acts are more
blatant and premeditated.

In view of these facts, we submit that defendant Thomas
must be subjected to the severest punishment provided by
law and sentenced to a maximum term of incarceration.

IV.

Evidence As To The Conspiracy to Burglarize
Government Offices, Steal Government Documents,
Intercept Private Governmental Communications,
and Forge Government Credentials.
-----------------------------------------------

As the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence demonstrates
beyond question, each defendant was guilty of many more
crimes than the single count of which each was found guilty.
Indeed, the evidence establishes that each defendant was
guilty of each offense with which he or she was charged.

- 42 -

Throughout the first conspiracy, charged in count one and
substantive crimes charged in counts two to twenty-two and
twenty-four to twenty-eight, each of the defendants performed
his or her duties zealously and to the full extent expected
of them by the Guardian's Office and the Church of Scientology.

The uncontested evidence establishes that the conspiracy
charged in count one of the indictment actually began on
November 21, 1973, when Jane Keraber wrote to defendant
Heldt to obtain documents in the files of the National Central
Bureau of Interpol and the District of Columbia Police Depart-
ment regarding L. Ron Hubbard. (Stip. 13.) The guidelines
for most, if not all, of the burglaries, and thefts in which
defendants engaged were set out in Guardian Order (GO) 1361
and Guardian Program Orders 9, 158 and 302. Each of the
defendants played a critical role in effecting the directives
contained in these Orders. While defendant Heldt, as the
leader of the United States Guardian's Office had primary
authority, other defendants made vital contributions to the
supervision of the conspiracy. For example, defendant Snider
participated in the management of the "bugging" of the IRS
conference concerning the Church of Scientology on November 1,
1974, receiving the transcript of that meeting from defen-
dant Hermann and unindicted co-conspirator Don Alverzo and
informing the Guardian's Office World-Wide of this covert
action. (Stip. 26 et seq.) Significantly, in his corres-
pondence with his superiors, defendant Snider noted the
criminal implications of the "bugging" and the need for care
in handling the transcript so as to avoid the severe reper-
cussions arising from the "new laws on this federally and a
strong post-Watergate judicial climate." (Stip. 30.) Simi-
larly, defendant Snider monitored the process by which

- 43 -

Scientology infiltrated the ins through the placement of
defendant Wolfe (stip. 32 et seq.), and the initial thefts
of documents from the IRS. (Stip. 38.)

Concerning defendant Weigand it must be noted that from
December 1974 until mid-May 1977 he was the United States
Deputy Guardian for Information, and therefore, the leader
of the bureau within the Guardian's Office charged with
carrying out the vast majority of targets contained in GO
1361. Thus, plans such as "Project Horn" (see Government
Exhibit No. 14 at Stip. 49 et_ seq.) , designed to provide a
cover for the public dissemination of stolen IRS documents,
had to initially be approved by him. He and defendants
Heldt, Snider, Willardson, Raymond and Hermann also received
all MeiSner memoranda with appended stolen documents. (see,
inter alia, n, 36 at Stip. 60.) Finally, the degree of
defendant Weigand's awareness of and involvement in the
count one conspiracy is reflected in his letter of July 2,
1975 to defendant Snider, wherein he reviewed Guardian's
Offices accomplishments under GO 1361. (Government Exhibit
No. 39 at Stip. 75.)

Working along with defendant Weigand and other defen-
dants, defendant Willardson was a major determiner of, the
conspiratorial strategy. Among his contributions to this
conspiracy, which are set out in great detail in the
"uncontested" stipulation of evidence, were the formulation
of "Project Horn"7/ and his "legal" analysis regarding the

------------------------
7/ Project Horn was the highly sophisticated plan to
steal IRS stationery and IRS documents regarding organizations
other than Scientology. (Stip. 48 jet. seq.) The purpose of
this plan was to disguise the theft of these IRS documents
by making it appear that a disgruntled IRS employee had
leaked documents to numerous organizations, including
Scientology. This would enable the Public Relations Bureau
of the Guardian's Office to utilize the stolen documents
without fear of being connected to the thefts. Each of
defendant Willardson1s superiors initialed the document
containing the plan (Government Exhibit No. 14), thereby
indicating their approval, (n.29 at Stip. 49-50.)

During the course of all these activities, defendant
Raymond, in her capacity as Collections Officer, received
copies of all stolen documents and was in constant contact
with the District of Columbia Guardian's Office. Her repeated
directives to burglarize offices and steal documents are out-
lined ad nauseam in her letters, memoranda and orders. It
was defendant Raymond who recruited defendant Wolfe and
approved the placing of defendant Thomas at the Department
of Justice. She directed the theft of IRS documents relating
to the on-going litigation between the Church of Scientology
and the Untied States Government over the tax-exemption of
the Hawaii branch, of the Church of Scientology. (Stip. 55-
56.) She was also in charge of the project "Beetle Cleanup"
calling for the covert collection of all District of Columbia
IRS files "on LRH, Scientology, etc," (Stip. 70 et seq.)

No one can minimize the roles played by defendants
Wolfe and Thomas. The conspiracies set out in the "uncontested"
stipulation of evidence could not have succeeded without the
active and selfless participation of these two defendants.
Thus, the first one hundred and seventy-six pages of the
"uncontested" evidence describe the numerous burglaries and
thefts which each of these defendants committed. Over and
over again, they burglarized Government offices, searching
for those documents sought by their superiors. At no time,
did either defendant object or seek to withdraw from either
conspiracy.

In sum, each of the defendants fulfilled a key role in
the conduct of the conspiracy to burglarize, steal, and bug.
Each must therefore bear the entire weight of that partici-
pation.

- 45 -

V.

Other Crimes Committed
By These Defendants
-----------------------

The defendants' contention that they committed the
crimes set out. in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence
in order to protect their Church from Government harrassment
collapses when one reviews the remaining documents seized
by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles
search warrants -- documents which this Court has since
unsealed and which are now in the public domain. These
documents are corroborated by the testimony of some of the
participants in the crimes catalogued therein. If anything
these documents and the witnesses' testimony establishes
beyond question that the defendants and their unindicted
co-conspirators, as well as their organizations, considered
themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte
blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in
order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices
and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and
organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed
by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting
its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear
so that critics would shy away from exercising the First
Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution.8_/ The
defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns,
spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be

-----------------------
8/ This is precisely how Scientology's critics viewed
Scientology's activities. Newsweek, November 20, 1978 at
133: "The Church of Scientology relies on suits and petty
harassment to register its complaints. In August, the
Scientologists slapped a $1 million suit on the Los Angeles
Times after it ran a series about the Church. The Times
wasn't accused of libel; rather, the Scientologists claimed
that the paper conspired with the FBI and Justice Department
to violate the church's civil rights by poisoning the
atmosphere before a trial" in the instant case.

- 46 -

enemies of Scientology in or to discredit them and,
some instances, cause them to lose their employment. Their
targets included, among others, the American Medical Asso-
oiation (AMA) which had branded the practice of "dianetics"
as "quackery," the Better Business Bureau (BBB) which sought
to respond to private citizens' inquiries about the courses
offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to
report the news and inform the public, law firms which
represented individuals and organizations against whom
Scientology initiated law suits often for the sole purpose of
harrassment, private citizens who attempted to exercise
their First Amendment right to criticize an organization
which they considered suspect, and public officials who
sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected
or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these
defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not
agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom
the so-called "fair game doctrine" could be invoked. Allard
v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal.App.3d 439,
129 Cal.Rptr. 797 (Ct.App. 1976), cert, denied, 97 S.Ct.
1101 (1977). That doctrine provided that anyone perceived
to be an enemy of Scientology "May be deprived of property
or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any
discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be tricked, sued
or lied to or destroyed." 58 Cal.App.3d at 443 n.l, 129
Cal.Rptr. at 800 n.l.9/ This policy, together with the
actions of the defendants who represented the very top
leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question

------------------
9/ This led the California Court of Appeals to state
that "Any party whose tenets Include lying and cheating in
order to attack its 'enemies' deserves the results of the
risk which such conduct entails." 58 Cal.App.3d at 452,
129 Cal.Rptr. at 805.

- 47 -

their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of
illegal acts.

The United States submits that the activities outlined
in this section show the scope, breadth and severity of the
crimes committed by the defendants in this case. It is for
these very reasons that the United States believes that the
defendants must be sentenced to the maximum terms of incar-
ceration provided by law.

A. Private Organizations
-------------------------
American Medical Association
----------------------------
In the early 1970's, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron
Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued an order concerning
the "Great Health Monopoly", which accused the AMA of mono-
polizing health care to the exclusion of groups such as
Scientology. In this order, Hubbard called for the break-
up of the AMA.

In accordance with the founder's policy, the AMA's
Chicago headquarters were first infiltrated in 1972 by
Kathy Gregg under the supervision of defendant Gregory
Willardson. Documents stolen during this period were uti-
lized in the publication of a book written by unindicted co-
conspirator Joe Lisa using a pseudonym. The book, entitled
"In the Public Interest," was covertly published and distri-
buted by the Information Bureau of the Guardian's Office in
order to discredit the AMA.

In early 1974, unindicted co-conspirator Bruce Raymond,
then the Information Bureau's Operations Officer, came to
the District of Columbia to order Michael Meisner, then the
Assistant Guardian for Information in the District of Columbia,
to recruit and place an agent in the AMA's District of Columbia
office. Defendant Hermann, who was in charge of covert

- 48 -

operations in the District of Columbia, recruited June Byrne
and assisted her in infiltrating the local AMA office under
the false name of Lisa Giannotti. (See document no. 12687
which was addressed to defendant Snider and initialed by
defendants Heldt, Willardson and Snider.)10/

Byrne photocopied numerous internal AMA documents, and
relayed them to defendant Hermann until March 1975, and
subsequent to that date to Mr, Meisner. These documents
were summarized in memoranda addressed to defendant Raymond
and routed through, among others, defendants Heldt, Snider,
Weigand and Willardson. (See documents nos. 12902 (13 August
1970; 577M (17 December 1974); 16818 (18 December 1974);
5772 (26 February 1975).) Among the documents stolen were
minutes of meetings between the AMA and the National Medical
Association; memoranda of discussions with the federal
Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and memoranda
regarding the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of
Hospitals (JCAH) and the Coordinating Committee on Health
Information (CCHI).

Another covert operative was placed in the Chicago
headquarters of the AMA in order to obtain all documents
on the CCHI. That agent, Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sherry

-----------------------
10/ See document no. 10081, Exhibit No. 2, which con-
tains much correspondence among defendants Heldt, Weigand
and Raymond concerning the use of Ms. Byrne as a covert
operative at the Clearwater Sun newspaper, following her
detection by AMA investigators in 1975. At page nineteen,
defendant Raymond stated that June Byrne had been blown as
a Scientology agent at the Clearwater Sun. She added "that
there is a chain of events leading up to the base blown
agents which starts in late 1974 when June (The CWSUN FSM)
was placed in the AMA D.C." Defendant Raymond discussed
the placement of Jodie Gurapert as a second covert agent
at the AMA in the District of Columbia, her detection by
the AMA, and her subsequent infiltration of the Clearwater
Chamber of Commerce. The entire report is written by
defendant Raymond and addressed to defendant Weigand and
was prepared at the request of defendant Heldt and his
superiors.

- 49 -

Canavaro and Sandy Cooper, obtained all these documents and
relayed them to her husband, the defendant Mitchell Hermann
who was her case agent. (See document no. 13078 entitled
"Raw Data Report" dated June 16, 1975.) That document was
addressed to defendant Raymond. It is also reflected in
defendant Weigand's compliance report of October 3, 1975
to defendant Heldt. (Exhibit No. 3, document no. 16712.)

In the Spring of 1975, Mr. Meisner received an order
approved by defendant Weigand to covertly leak to the press
the numerous AMA documents which had been obtained in the
District of Columbia and Chicago. That action was intended
to provoke investigations of the AMA's tax exempt status
by Congressional Committees, the IRS, and the Federal Trade
Commission. (Document no. 2373, a compliance report from
defendant Weigand to defendant Heldt, and document no. 15526,
a letter from defendant Willardson.) Pursuant to these
directives, Mr. Meisner was to anonymously contact reporters
and send them copies of these stolen documents. Newspapers
subsequently referred to that anonymous source as "Sore
Throat." The reference to "ST" by defendant Willardson
on document no. 15526 (at pages 2, 17 and 18) establishes
that "Sore Throat" was indeed a member of the Guardian's
Office.

Better Business Bureau
----------------------

The infiltration of the Council of Better Business Bureaus
(CBBB) began on December 4, 1972, with the placement of Sherry
Canavaro (later Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sandy Cooper) as a covert
agent within that organization. (Document no. 16727.) She was

11/ In document no. 15526 defendant Willardson also
set out additional targets including having "ST" (Sore
Throat) write a letter to AMA members for the purpose of
fomenting dissension within that organization.

- 50 -

supervised from January 1974 to March 1975 by defendant Mitchell
Hermann. On February 14, 1975, defendant Heldt transmitted
stolen CBBB documents to Deputy Guardian for Legal Bureau
US Joel Kreiner. Included in those stolen documents was a
confidential letter from the CBBB's law firm of Caplin and
Drysdale to the CBBB. (Document no. 12675.)

On March 28, 1974, defendant Heldt approved "mission
orders" calling for the infiltration of the Buffalo BBB.
(Document no. 13334 at 2.) In another document, Heldt in-
formed a superior of Scientology's covert operations within
the CBBB and prospects that the covert agent might become
the CBBB's representative to the CCHI (Coordinating Conference
on Health Information).7/ (Document no. 16723, Exhibit
No. 4)

Following Ms. Canavaro's reassignment from the CBBB to
the AMA in Chicago, a second covert operative (Aileen Cronin)
was placed within the CBBB and remained there until the end
of 1975.

Mental Health Organizations
---------------------------

Guardian Order 121569 MSH (1) issued on December 15, 1969,
directed the infiltration of all mental health organizations
both nationally and world-wide. (Document no. 8664, Exhibit
No. 6) The purpose of such infiltration was w[t]o obtain
advance information with regard to any actions or intentions
directed against us" and "[t]o do everything possible to in-
hibit or stop any actions directed against us." Furthermore,
all operatives were directed "[t]o do everything possible
in the collection of such data."

--------------------------
12/ One of the functions of the CCHI was to coordinate
efforts against groups believed to promote quackery. The
defendants were successful in having their covert operative
become the CBBB's representative to two CCHI meetings, one
of which she was able to tape.

- 51 -

This Guardian Order was carried out on a number of fronts.
Thus local mental health organizations were infiltrated by
covert operatives in Las Vegas (document no. 13336) and St.
Louis (document no. 1596 at 12). Indeed, the Assistant Guar-
dian for Information in Las Vegas reported to some of the
defendants that "everything possible was done to collect
this data, everything from infiltration to stealing to eaves-
dropping, etc. ..." (Document no. 13336.)

Defendant Sharon Thomas was recruited as a covert opera-
tive in 1973 in the District of Columbia by defendant Snider,
the Assistant Guardian. She was later assigned to infiltrate
the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Beginning in
January 1971*, defendant Hermann supervised defendant Thomas'
APA thefts. While in the APA, defendant Thomas stole documents
regarding Scientology as well as confidential files of the
APA1s Ethics Committee concerning complaints against psychia-
trists. (Documents nos. 8804 and 8805.) These stolen docu-
ments were sent to defendants Heldt, Willardson and Budlong.

The American Psychological Association was also infil-
trated pursuant to GO 121569 MSH(l) by Scientology covert
operative Larry Spinks, defendant Thomas' first husband.
Spinks' unlawful endeavors within that organization were also
supervised by defendant Hermann who had in fact recruited
him for the job.

Finally, Guardian Program Order 1238 (document no. 8911,
Exhibit No. 5.) had as its "major target:"

To obtain the information necessary
to take over the control of NIMH
[National Institute of Mental Health]
while at the same time establishing
the lines and resources to be used
in taking over NIMH.

Also included in that program were the infiltration of the Pub-
lic Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the

-52 -

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA).
The program called for approval by, among others, defendants
Heldt and Weigand and fugitive defendants Keraber and Budlong.

"Anti-Cult" Groups
------------------

The Los Angeles-seized documents set out a variety of
actions instituted by the defendants and their organization
against individuals and groups engaged in so-called "anti-
cult" activities. Thus, in March 1976, defendant Weigand
was informed that Scientology covert operatives were actively
engaged against several persons who were either publishing
books or giving lectures and speeches considered by the
Guardian's Office to be anti-Scientology. In one such in-
stance, defendant Weigand was told that an FSM was about to
be placed with an individual who was involved in the Christian
Research Institute and who "plans on writing entheta on
Scientology." (Document no. 2238 at 3.) In that same report,
defendant Weigand was also notified that another FSM would
intercept an "anti-Scientology" book "before it hits public."
(Id. at 1.) Also included was an April 1976 report to defen-
dant Weigand attesting that a covert agent ("FSM") had been
placed in the Volunteer Parents of America, an anti-cult
group perceived to have the ability to harm Scientology.
(Id. at 8.) Defendant Weigand routinely relayed these re-
ports to his superiors in the Guardian's Office.

In February 1977, the Guardian's Office promulgated
Guardian Program Order 1017 entitled "ARM (Anti-Religion
Movement) Clean Sweep." (Document no. 13724.) It was written
by unindicted co-conspirator George Pilat for defendants
Heldt, Weigand and Budlong, and promulgated by fugitive
defendant Jane Keraber, the Guardian World-Wide. That order

- 53 -

called for the placement of "covert agents" for "data collec-
tion lines" with anti-cult groups. (Id. at 1.) It provided,
however, that only defendants Heldt and Weigand could authorize
the use by other bureaus of the Guardian's Office of the
documents so obtained. (Id. at 2.)

The Information Bureau's activities in this regard were
not solely of a "data-collection" nature. On February 14,
1977, defendant Weigand was notified by defendant Hermann/
Cooper's wife Sandy Cooper that "[a]s you know we are setting
up a kidnapping to be done eventually by Michale [sic]
Trauscht, so as to set him up for fraud charges by the
parents." (Document no. 16592.) Similarly, defendant
Heldt directed defendant Raymond to set up a "covert op
[operation]" which would lead to "the arrest of IFIF/IFFET
[two anti-Scientology groups] principals and discrediting of
ARM as a result." (Document no. 15722 at 2.) The scheme
directed the planting of false documents in the organizations'
files showing that they had committed illegal activities.
(Id. at 5.) Defendant Heldt concluded that: "Now, IFIF/IFFET
must be busted by the police -- raided with search warrants
so files can be seized." (Id. at 6.) He listed as possibili-
ties for the arrest the planting by Scientologists of drugs
and illegal weapons. (Id. at 6-7.) Defendant Raymond, who
now professes that she did not realize that burglaries of
Government buildings and theft of Government property was
illegal, wrote a note to another Guardian's Office official
stating: "Henning [Heldt] did this as part of his course.
Thought you might use it. Love Cindy." (Id. p.l.) 13/

dants who now complain about unfounded violations of theft*
Fourth Amendment rights and their right to privacy, were
prepared to trample upon those rights anytime it suited
their purpose.

B. Law Firms
------------

As part of their criminal activities some of the de-
fendants actively engaged in burglaries and thefts of docu-
ments from private law firms in Washington, D.C., and Los
Angeles, California, that represented private organizations
sued by Scientology. These included the law firms of Sidley
and Austin, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, and West-
Girardi.

Because all Scientology covert operatives within the
American Medical Association (AMA) in Chicago and Washington,
D.C., had been blown, defendant Willardson ordered the infil-
tration of the AMA's law firm's offices in Washington, D.C.,
to obtain documents of interest to Scientology. These AMA
documents were to be released to the press using the code
name "Sore Throat," in order to embarrass and harrass the
AMA. Thus, in May 1976, defendant Willardson ordered that
"Judy actions" 14/ be carried out against the law firm of
Sidley and Austin located at 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
in Washington, D.C. To that end, two Scientologists entered
the law firm's offices on a weeknight, after working hours,
and after approximately one and one-half hours located the
firm's AMA files. (Stip. 210-211 and n.155, Government
Exhibit No. 132.) All these files, including one setting out
an AMA investigator's findings regarding the infiltration of
the AMA by Scientology operatives, were taken and photocopied.

Some of these documents were subsequently surreptitiously
released to the press at the AMA Convention in the summer of
1976. Copies of all stolen documents were sent to defendant
Mitchell Hermann who was then using the alias Mike Cooper.
At least three burglaries were committed during the early
months of 1976 at the law offices of Arent, Fox, Kintner,
Plotkin and Kahn who then represented the St. Petersburg
Times in a Scientology-initiated law salt. These burglaries
and thefts of documents were carried out pursuant to the
orders of defendant Mitchell Hermann. In February 1976
two entries were made into the office of Jack Bray and his
secretary at the above-mentioned law firm, the first one by
Richard Kimmel, the acting Assitant Guardian for Information
in the District of Columbia ,15/ and the second one by Kimmel
and Michael Meisner. On each occasion, documents outlining
the law firms strategy in defending the law suit brought
against the Sit. Petersburg Times were taken. See Exhibit
No. 7, a telex from defendant Duke Snider to the World-
Wide Guardian's Office dated 13 February 1976 setting out
information obtained by Kimmel from Mr. Bray's office..]16/
The last entry occurred on or about March 8, 1976, and addi-
tional files were stolen. See Exhibit No. 8, a memorandum
summarizing the stolen documents. On each occasion, the
documents were taken to the Guardian's Office at 2125 S
Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C., photocopied and returned
to the law firm. As indicated in Exhibit No. 8 copies of
all stolen documents were sent to defendant Mitchell Hermann.

---------------------
15/ At that time, Michael Meisner who held the position
of Assistant Guardian for Informaiton was attending meetings
in Los Angeles, California.

16/ Duke Snider was then on special temporary assignment
in Clearwater, Florida.

- 56 -

Finally, beginning in February 1976, pursuant to orders
approved by the defendant Richard Weigand, attempts were made"
to place a Scientology covert operative within the law firm
of West-Girardi in Los Angeles, California, as an early warning
project and in'order "that any planned attack by this firm
can be predicted." (See document no. 2238 at p. 3.)

The defendants participated in a number of covert opera-
tions against private individuals and public officials to
destroy and discredit these persons because they had either
attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights by criti-
cizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their duties
as public officials.

Paulette Cooper
---------------

In 1976 the highest ranking Scientologists in the United
States, including at least six of the defendants,17/ de-
signed a series of plans which had as their goal the impri-
sonment* or commitment to a mental institution of one of
their critics, an author and journalist named Paulette
Cooper. Paulette Cooper is the author of The Scandal of
Scientology, a work highly critical of Scientology.

In the Spring of 1976 six separate schemes were devised
with the express purpose

"To get P.C. (Paulette Cooper) incar-
cerated in a mental institution or
jail, or at least to hit her so hard
that she drops her attacks."

Cooper from her position of Power so that she cannot attack
the Church of Scientology]." (See also defendant Hermann's
proposals in document no. 12887 at 7 et seq.) The six separate
schemes were jointly entitled "Operation Freakout. In its
initial form Operation Freakout had three different plans.
The first required a woman to imitate Paulette Cooper's
voice and make telephone threats to Arab Consulates in New
York. (Documents nos. 11422 at 3, 11973 at 2-3.) The second
scheme involved mailing a threatening letter to an Arab
Consulate in such a fashion that it would appear to have
been done by Paulette Cooper. (Documents nos. 11122 at 3-4,
11973 at 3-4.) Finally, a Scientology field staff member
was to impersonate Paulette Cooper at a laundry and threaten
the President and the then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
(Documents nos. 11422 at 5, 11973 at 5, 11972.) A second
Scientologist would thereafter advise the FBI of the threat.
(Documents nos. 11422 at 5, 11973 at 5.) Defendant Weigand
approved these three schemes and defendant Willardson added
his own amendments to improve them. (Documents nos. 11422-
11423, 9058.)

Two additional plans to Operation Freakout were added
on April 13, 1976. Unindicted co-conspirator Bruce Raymond,
the National Operations Officer, sent the two plans to
defendants Willardson and Cindy Raymond. (Documents nos.
11422 at 9-10, 11423, Exhibit No. 11) The fourth plan
called for Scientology field staff members who had ingra-
tiated themselves with Cooper to gather information from
Cooper so Scientology could assess the success of the first
three plans./ (Documents nos. 11422 at 6, 11973 at 6.)

---------------------
18/ On April 2, 1976, which was during the period of
time that Operation Freakout was being drafted, defendant
Weigand wrote a compliance report indicating that a field
staff member of Scientology was in close communication with
Paulette Cooper monitoring Cooper's plans and movements.
(Document no. 9058.)

- 58 -

The fifth plan was for a Scientologist to warn an Arab
Consulate by telephone that Paulette Cooper had been talking
about bombing them. (Documents nos. 11422 at 6, 11973 at 6.)

The Sixth and final part of Operation Freakout was sent
to defendants Weigand, Willardson and Raymond on April 13,
1976 by Bruce Raymond, a/k/a Randy Windment. (Document no.
11423.) In this plan Scientologists were to obtain Paulette
Cooper's fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, type a
threatening letter to Kissinger on that paper, and mail it.
Defendants Weigand and Willardson approved this plan. (Docu-
ments nos. 11422-11423, 9058.) The plan required that no
fingerprints of any Scientologist be on the piece of paper.19/

Later in the year 1976, defendant Heldt ordered defendant
Weigand to analyze Paulette Cooper's connection to the St.
Petersburg Times lawsuit against Scientology which accused
Scientology of harrassment by litigation. He also asked for

---------------------------
19/ The sixth plan bears a distinct resemblance to a
scheme of Scientologists in 1972 and 1973 against Paulette
Cooper. In 1972 Scientologists obtained Paulette Cooper's
fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, typed two bomb
threat letters on that and' another piece of paper, sent the
threats to Scientology offices in New York, and then advised
the FBI that they had received the threats and that they
may have come from Cooper. Paulette Cooper was indicted
in the Southern District of New York in 1973 for making
these threats. An order Nolle Prosequi was filed on that
indictment in 1975. As Bruce Raymond/Randy Windment noted
in his April 13, 1976 "CSW" to defendant Weigand, which
Weigand approved, the sixth plan of Operation Freakout was
likely to prove effective since the same kind of scheme
against Cooper had worked in the past.

Attached is approved Operation Freakout.
This additional channel [the sixth
plan] should really have her put away.
Worked with all the other channels.
The F.B.I., already think she really
did the bomb threats on the C of S
[Church of Scientology!".

any recommendation for "handling" Cooper. (Document no.
20703.) In response, defendant Hermann, a/k/a Mike Cooper,
prepared a report accusing Paulette Cooper to be the source
of the St. Petersburg Times idea of suing Scientology for
harrassment by litigation.20/ Defendant Hermann/Cooper also
charged that Paulette Cooper had been responsible for sug-
gesting to the Department of Justice that Scientology had
harrassed the Government through filing lawsuits. He recom-
mended that Scientology settle outstanding litigation with
Paulette Cooper and "then hit her with OPS [operations] to
ensure she is not again in a position to attack us."
(Document no. 12887 at 5-9.) Defendant Weigand passed the
Hermann/Cooper recommendations on to Heldt. Weigand endorsed
the idea of pacifying Paulette Cooper by settling outstanding
litigation with her, in the hopes of catching her off-guard
when Scientologists implemented schemes to harm her. He
stated that after settling the litigation with Paulette
Cooper the goal of Scientology should be to

"quietly hit . . . her with Ops
[operations] so she won't again
get to a position from which she
can attack the Church."

(Document no. 12887 at 3; See also document no. 12887.)

--------------------
20/ Cooper herself has been sued by the Church of
Scientology on numerous occasions and in many jurisdictions
around the world. Since 1970 the 'Church of Scientology has
filed six lawsuits in three foreign countries and numerous
lawsuits in the United States against Cooper. With the ex-
ception of three foreign lawsuits and a counterclaim in an
American lawsuit, all of the actions have been dismissed.

21/ In another vicious campaign to smear the reputation
of Ms. Cooper, the defendants spread vile rumors that were
totally false about her sex life. (Document no. 12837 ad-
dressed to defendant Weigand and initialed by defendant
Willardson; see also document no. 12887 at 1-2.)

- 60 -

Gabriel Cazares
---------------

When Scientology first decided to set up a base in
Clearwater, Florida, in late 1975, it did so using the cover
name of "United Churches of Florida" (UCF) with no outward
connection to Soientology. Gabriel Cazares, who was Clear-
water's Mayor, campaigned for the disclosure of the true
purposes of the UCF. When UCF's connections to Scientology
were uncovered, Mayor Cazares became highly critical of
Scientology. Because of his criticism, Mayor Cazares was
targetted by the Information Bureau of Guardian's Office and
covert operations designed to remove him from office were
ordered.

To that end, in early March 1976, defendant Hermann
notified defendant Snider that Mayor Cazares was about to
attend a Mayor's Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 13-
17i and that Assistant Guardian for Information in Clearwater
Joe Lisa was formulating a covert operation that Mayor
Cazares had a mistress. (Document no. 19649; Exhibit No. 12.)
Shortly, thereafter, defendant Hermann ordered Mr. Meisner
to carry out an operation on Mayor Cazares during his
Washington trip -- that operation was to involve a fake hit-
and-run accident. Defendant Sharon Thomas was to be the
main participant in that operation. She was to meet Mayor
Cazares, drive him around town, and at a predetermined loca-
tion stage a hit-and-run accident with Mr. Meisner as the
"victim."

At the same time that defendant Hermann was directing
Mr. Meisner to carry out the "accident," defendant Weigand
responded to defendant Snider's earlier orders by sending him
a list of Clearwater, Florida, "enemies" and their priority
for "handling" purposes. (Document no. 19645; Exhibit No. 13.)

- 61 -

Mayor Cazares ranked second on the defendants Weigand's and
Snider's list, right behind the St. Petersburg Times.

On March 11, 1976, District of Columbia Collections
Officer Joseph Alesi, posing as a reporter interviewed Mayor
Cazares. During that interview, he met defendant Sharon
Thomas. Thomas then offered to show Mayor Cazares the town.
During that drive, defendant Thomas, who was driving, staged
her fake hit-and-run accident in Rock Creek Park,- hitting
Michael Meisner. She drove on without reporting the accident
to the police. Of course, defendant Thomas knew that no
harm had been caused to the "victim." (Document no. 23000;
Exhibit No. 14.) In a letter dated March 15, 1976, to CSG
Assistant for Information Jimmy Mulligan and fugitive defen-
dant Morris (Mo) Budlong, defendant Weigand discussed how
Scientology could use that "fake" accident against Mayor
Cazares and concluded that "I should think that the Mayor's
political days are at an end." (Id. at 2.)

In March 1976, defendant Willardson approved another
"operation" directing that false marriage documents be
planted to show that Mayor Cazares had been secretly married
in Tijuana, Mexico, in 1938-1940 and that he was, therefore,
a bigamist. The operation was approved by defendant Weigand
on March 30, 1976. (Documents nos. 11376 and 11377.)

On June 6, 1976, defendant Snider wrote Guardian Pro-
gram Order 398 entitled "Mayor Cazares Handling Project,"
which was approved by defendant Heldt and promulgated by
fugitive defendant Kember. Its purpose was "to remove Cazares
from any position from which he can inhibit the expansion of
Scientology" and called for, among other things: (1) carrying
"out a covert campaign to create strife between Cazares and
the City Commission"; and (2) placing a covert operative in

- 62 -

his Congressional campaign organization. (Document no. 1474.)
In the Summer of 1976, fake letters from "Sharon T" were mailed
by Scientology to citizens in the Clearwater area stating
that Mayor Cazares had been involved in a hit-and-run accident.
The stated purpose of this smear campaign was to discredit
the Mayor. Reports were sent to defendant Hermann as South-
east US Secretary, defendants Heldt and Weigand. (Documents
nos. 17073-17074; Exhibits Nos. 15-16.) Also during that
time "Project Taco-Less" was issued, calling for the release
of "further data about the Mayor" to "ruin his political
carreer and remove/restrain him as an opponent to Scn [Scien-
tology]." (Documents nos. 1504-1505.) On November 3, 1976,
unindicted co-conspirator Joe Lisa informed defendant Snider
that Mayor Cazares had been defeated in the Congressional
race as a result of the implementation of Guardian Program
Order 398 and the other Scientology actions which included
phone calls . . . spreading rumors inside his camp, contri-
buting to disorganization in his campaign . . . ." (Document
no. 1491.)

Senator Dennis DeConcini
------------------------

Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini was "targeted" by the
Information Bureau of the Guardian's Office because of his
support for various anti-cult groups referred to in part A
supra.

"Operation Devil's Wop" was ordered implemented by
defendant Weigand on April 4, 1977, pursuant to a direct order
from the highest official of the Guardian's Office and the
Church of Scientology. (Document no. 8942 at 3.) The opera-
tion called for the eventual distribution to the press of
a report falsely linking Senator DeConcini with organized

- 63 -

crime figures and accusing him of being involved in question-
able real estate transactions. In early June 1977 the
writing of the report was assigned to Mr. Meisner due to his
familiarity with the District of Columbia and his previous
dealings with the press. (Document no. 89^2.)

Celebrities 22/
----------------

On January 4, 1976, defendant Weigand drafted Guardian
Order 1361-3 which was approved by defendant Heldt and issued
by fugitive defendant Kember. The program called for the
theft of Los Angeles IRS Intelligence files on "celebrities,
politicians and big names." In complete disregard for the
rights of these individuals, defendant Weigand's program
directed that the stolen information be published. (Document
no. 11513.) In fact, IRS files on former California Governor
Edmund Brown, current California Governor Edmund Brown, Jr.,
Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and his wife, and Frank Sinatra
were stolen from the IRS1 Los Angeles offices and forwarded
to defendants Heldt and Weigand for disclosure to the press.
(Documents nos. 11511*, 15-16, and 1548.) Undoubtedly recog-
nizing the serious implications, qf having such files in his
possession, defendant Heldt returned them to defendant Weigand
stating that "I don't need such hot stuff in my files."
(Document no. 1548 at 2; Exhibit No! 1J.)

D. Newspapers
-------------

The defendants and their organization mounted a head-on
assault upon newspapers that had been critical of Scientology.

-------------------------
22/ These are but four examples of the numerous operations
conducted against private citizens and public officials. A
review of the documents seized in Los Angeles shows the incre-
dible scope of these operations.

- 64 -

They infiltrated newspapers and in other instances, without
disclosing that they were associated with Scientology, planted
stories of interest to their organization. The following are
but a handful of their blatant criminal activities against
the press.

In November 1975, defendant Willardson ordered Michael
Meisner to send three District of Columbia covert agents to
Clearwater. One of the operatives sent to Clearwater was June
Byrne, the blown AMA agent. In Clearwater, Ms. Byrne infil-
trated the Clearwater Sun and provided Scientology almost daily
reports on the activities of that newspaper. (See e.g.,
documents nos. 17988, 17991, 17995, 17996, 18006 which deal
with less than a two-week period.) She remained as Scientology's
covert operative at the Sun until late 1976 when she was
withdrawn out of fear that her cover had been blown. (Docu-
ment no. 8569 at 12 -- an attachment to a report written by
defendant Weigand.)

On March 19, 1976, defendant Weigand received a memorandum
from National Operations Officer Bruce Raymond, a/k/a Randy
Windment, outlining a covert operation against Eugene Patterson,
the editor and president of the St. Petersburg Times. The
operation which was approved by defendant Weigand, involved
the making of phone calls to Patterson's wife and others designed
to discredit Patterson with St. Petersburg Times owner Nelson
Poynter.

A second operation was directed against St. Petersburg
Times reporter Bette Orsini and was designed to inhibit her
from writing articles about Scientology. Pursuant to that
operation, documents allegedly linking the local Easter Seal
Society, which was headed by Ms. Orsini1s husband, with various
alleged tax law violations were distributed in Clearwater and

- 65 -

elsewhere. Interestingly, this operation backfired on the
Scientologists when Ms. Orsini traced the anonymous mailings
to a Scientology covert agent at the Clearwater Chamber of
Commerce -- Jody Gumpert. (Document no. 8569.)

In the Spring of 1975, defendant Hermann approved the
placement of covert agent Charles Judge as a security guard
at The Washington Post in the District of Columbia. Mr. Judge
provided the District of Columbia's Information Bureau with
research material which he secured from the Post's files.

During 1972 and 1973, defendant Hermann, in order to more
efficiently carry out his Information Bureau duties, used the
cover of a newspaper reporter for the Trans-International
Press Service (TIPS) -- an Information Bureau cover organiza-
tion. When TIPS' connection with Scientology was exposed
during the summer of 1973, defendant Hermann, to preserve
his cover, obtained employment on an unpaid basis with the
Washington Informer newspaper. He wrote a weekly column
which represented the views of Scientology and attacked
Scientology's opponents. When defendant Hermann left the
District of Columbia in March 1975 he was replaced in that
position by Information Bureau staff member Joseph Alesi.
It is interesting that while defendant Hermann disclosed to
the Probation Office that he was employed by the Washington
Informer, he failed to disclose that he was employed as a
Scientology agent.

E. State and Local Government Agencies
--------------------------------------

Numerous state and local Government agencies through the
United States were targeted for infiltration by defendants and
their Guardian's Office. These infiltrations and thefts were
called for by Guardian Program Order 302 and Guardian Order
1080. Guardian Program Order 302 ordered the infiltration of

- 66 -

of all Governmental agencies that refused to acquiesce to
Scientology*s demand for access to their files. 22/

On March 4, 197H, fugitive defendant Jane Kember issued
GO 1080, an umbrella program ordering for the infiltration
of the California Attorney General's Office and all local
district attorney's offices in California. (Document no. 1317
at 1-12.) 2V On January 13, 1976, a sub-project of GO 1080
regarding the Los Angeles Office of the California Attorney
General was promulgated. It directed that that office be in-
filtrated "through any way or means and then locate and obtain
full copies of any and all files on the C of S, C of S investi-
gations, ets." (Document no. 1317 at 13-15.) On February.12,
1976, Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sandy Cooper, reported to defen-
dants Weigand and Heldt, among others, that keys to the
Attorney General's office had . been obtained. (Document no.
1318 at 2.) This report was subsequently appended to a
letter dated February 17, 1976, from defendant Weigand to
defendant Heldt in which Veigand agreed with Heldt that
greater security for such reports would be needed. (Id. at 1.)
Defendant Weigand also outlined for the benefit of fugitive
defendant Budlong the progress of GO 1080, appending ex-
oerpted stolen data prepared by defendant Raymond.

-------------------
22/ Thus, pursuant to GPgmO 302, Deac Finn, the Assistant
GuardTan for Information in New England (AGI NE) , wrote to
defendant Weigand on June 8, 1976, requesting Weigand's
approval for Finn's project to infiltrate the Suffolk County
District Attorney's Office (document no. 1535, p. 2), noting
that GPgrmO 302 required Weigand's approval for such actions.
See also document no. 21703 entitled "Project Owl" which sets
out defendant Hermann's plans for such infiltration in re-
sponse to the planned investigation of the Church for criminal
fraud and of one of its members for kidnapping. (Id.)

23/ That order was directed "TO THOSE CONCERNED" which
included, among others, the "DG US" (defendant Heldt), the
"DG Info US" (defendant Weigand) and the "D/D/G Info US"
(defendant Willardson), all of whom had been assigned tar-
gets under that program.

- 67 -

(Document no 1323; See also document no. 1336 -- a similar
letter from defendant Willardson to fugitive defendant Kember,
routed through defendants Heldt, Weigand and Budlong.)

I n December 1975, defendant Snider chastised defendant
Weigand for his slowness in complying with Target 9 of GO 1080.
That target directed the theft of files from the Los Angeles
District Attorney's and Attorney General's offices. (Document
no. 1377.)

In March 1976, a smear campaign entitled "Operation
Snapper 1" was devised within the Information Bureau to have
Lawrence Tapper, a perceived enemy, removed from his post in
the California Attorney General's Office. (Document no. 11510.)
The project included, among other things, having a pregnant
female covert operative ("FSM") publicly confront Tapper in
his office and blame him for her pregnancy. (Id., at 2.) 24/
On November 18, 1976, defendant Willardson directed Sherry
Hermann/Sandy Cooper to plan and execute further operations
against Mr. Tapper. (Document no. 1110.) That letter was
routed through defendant Weigand.

On August 10, 1976, Ms. Hermann/Cooper reported to defen-
dant Weigand compliance with Guardian Program Order 302 as
it pertained to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.
(Document no. 149; documents nos. 11591-11595 are copies of
documents stolen from that office.) On that same date, she
also reported to defendant Weigand that she had complied with
Guardian Order 1080 and Guardian Program Order 302 as far as
the Yolo County District Attorney's Office was concerned.
(Document no. 813.)

--------------------
24/ A second part of the plan called for a "Male FSM" to
call Tapper's office and pretend to be the father of the
pregnant woman, and for letters to be written making it appear
that Tapper was getting payoffs.

- 68 -

Finally, in March and April 1976 a series of orders
and projects, copies of which were sent to and approved by
defendant Weigand, directed the infiltration of the California
Department of Health, Board of Medical Examiners, Mental
Health Association, Department of Social Services, Los Angeles
Police Department, Los Angeles offices of the United States
Cusoms Service and United States Postal Service, the office
of Representative, and then Lieutenant-Governor, Melvih
Dymally, and the burglary of the home of James Estabrook, an
official of the California Department of Health. (Document no.
14786.) 25/

VI.
Conclusion
----------

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond
peradventure the massiveness of the conspiracies engaged
in by each of the defendants. It also puts to rest their
protestation that they only burglarized Government offices
and stole Government documents because of some imaginary
Governmental harrassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries, thefts and buggings
directed against the United States Government were but one
minor aspect of the defendants wanton assault upon the laws
of this country. The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart
the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence,
giving false fingerprints in response to a Grand Jury

-----------------------------
25/ On a more international scale, defendant Cindy Raymond
wrote Guardian Program Order 283 which ordered the infiltra-
tion of the United Nations to provide feedback on a submission
which Scientology intended to make to the United Nations. The
program was approved by the defendants Willardson, Weigand,
Heldt, and Budlong, and promulgated by fugitive defendant
Kember. (Document no. 561.) It was defendant Raymond's
responsibility to ensure that the ordered infiltration was
in fact carried out. (Documents nos. 502, 506, 509.) Defen-
dants Heldt and Weigand had immediate supervision over the
implementation of that order. (Document no. 522.)

- 69 -

subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a witness, pre-
paring an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the
giving of false statements to the Grand Jury shows the con-
tempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of
this country. Their total disregard for the laws is further
made clear by the criminal campaigns of villification,
burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private
and public individuals and organizations and carefully docu-
mented in minute detail. One can only wonder about the
crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their "Red
Box." That these defendants were willing to frame their
critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath
against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks
legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they
arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their
personal brand of punishment to those "guilty" of opposing
their selfish aims.

The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth
and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk,
or file was safe from their snooping and prying.' No indivi-
dual or organization was free from their despicable conspira-
torial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature trans-
mitters, lock picks, secret codes, * forged credentials, and
any other device they found necessary to carry out their
conspiratorial schemes. It is interesting to note that the
funder of their organization, un-indicted co-conspiratot L. Ron
Hubbard wrote in his dictionary entitled "Modern Management
Technology Defined" (which was introduced in evidence at the
motion to suppress hearing) that "truth is what is true for
you." Thus, with the founder's blessings they could wantonly
commit perjury as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

- 70 -

The defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in
success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards
of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no
less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value
system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these
defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend
their actions in the name of "religion." That these defen-
dants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of
freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to
privacy -- which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a
willingness to violate with impunity -- adds insult to the
injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.
These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organiza-
tion, and any other individual or group that might consider
committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and con-
vincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in
here shall not be tolerated by our society. Anyone who tam-
pers with the judicial system as was done in the instant case
must be dealt with as sternly as permitted by law. The United
States submits that the only appropriate punishment in this
case, the only one that is in the best interest of justice
and the public, is a maximum term of incarceration and,
where appropriate, the maximum fine provided by law.